LIBRARY 

■.'*rjf^ 

V 

i  f^heo 

logac.aJl  ; 

Sn  Ffj-i  : 

11  a^'y , 

i 

1 

PRJNGETON 

«.  J 

1 

S^^„ 

1     ::.k 

1   ■  .-- 

■^■■"-''    y^i 

**-=, 

"  ■  J. 


:l^ 


4?.,: 


■# 


■^I'^i^ 


:#?.!.-,^:.:« 
%?='^ 


'.tLi'  . 


HERMENEUTICS 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


"  Intelligere  scriptorem  is  diaendiis  est,  qrii  idem  qiiod  ille  dum 
83riieMt,  cogitavit,  legens  cogitat,"— A.  Kuenen. 


■   HERMENEUTICS 


OF   THE 


NEW    TESTAMENT 


by/ 
DE.   A.^MMER, 

PBOFE880B  OF  THJiOLOGY  IN  THE  UNIVEKSITY  OF  BERKB, 


ALBERT    H.  KEWMAN. 


WARREN    F.   DRAPER. 

MAIN  STREET. 

1877. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1877,  by 

WARREN  F.  DRAPER, 
in  the  OflBce  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


AHDOVBK:   PEINTED  BY  "W'ARIIEIJ  P.  DBAPBR. 


PBESS,  BAND,  AVEBY  ti  CO. 


TRANSLATOR'S   PREFACE. 


The  translation  of  Dr.  Immer's  Manual  of  the  Her- 
meneutics  of  the  New  Testament  is  now  offered  to  the 
public  not  as  in  all  .respects  an  authoritative  guide  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament,  but  rather  as 
an  exposition  of  the  principles  that  have  guided  the 
German  exegesis  of  the  present  generation,  and  that 
have  done  so  much  for  the  ascertaining  of  the  exact 
historical  sense  of  the  sacred  writings.  Like  the  exe- 
gesis itself,  this  exposition  of  the  principles  of  recent 
critical  exegesis  contains,  side  by  side  with  much  that 
is  of  the  greatest  value,  much  that  is  in  the  highest 
degree  erroneous ;  and  as  in  the  former,  so  in  the  latter, 
we  must,  if  we  would  gain  profit  from  its  perusal,  bring 
to  bear  upon  it  a  sound  criticism  of  our  own,  rejecting 
what  is  erroneous,  while  we  learn  from  it,  and  accepting 
gratefully  what  commends  itself  to  us  as  true. 

In  many  cases  we  have  expressed  in  the  notes  dissent 
from  statements  in  the  text ;  yet  it  is  not  to  be  inferred 
that  we  accept  as  our  own  all  that  is  not  thus  expressly 
rejected.  To  have  criticised  all  the  views  that  are  sub- 
ject to  criticism  would  have  required  more  space  and 
more  labor  than  could  have  been  bestowed. 
a*  (V) 


vi  translator's  preface. 

With  regard  to  the  work  of  translation,  it  has  been 
attempted,  as  far  as  practicable,  while  adhering  rigidly 
to  the  original,  to  reproduce  the  meaning  in  idiomatic 
English.  In  some  instances,  to  avoid  circumlocution, 
slightly  Teutonic  expressions  have  been  admitted.  The 
German  language,  like  the  Greek,  possesses  a  number 
of  light  particles  that  have  no  precise  equivalent  in 
English,  and  seem  sometimes  better  untranslated.  In 
some  instances  such  words  have  been  omitted ;  in  most 
instances  they  have  been  rendered  into  their  nearest 
equivalent,  even  when  slight  awkwardness  was  in* 
volved.  The  author  frequently  employs  glailbig  sneer- 
ingly  to  describe  the  conservative  theologians  of  the 
present  time.  The  designation  has  usually  been  ren- 
dered "  orthodox."  Tendenziose  is  a  term  that  has 
become  very  common  in  Germany  to  describe  the 
Tubingen  criticism,  and  has  arisen  from  the  lengths  to 
which  theologians  of  this  school  have  shown  them- 
selves ready  to  go,  to  establish  the  hypothesis  that  the 
New  Testament  writings  arose  out  of  conflicting  ten- 
dencies in  the  early  church  and  efforts  to  bring  about 
compromises  between  these  factions.  The  word  has 
been  transferred  in  the  translation  under  the  form 
"  tendential." 

The  paragraph  headings  and  the  side  summaries 
were  introduced  at  the  suggestion  of  Professor  Thayer, 
and  of  Mr.  Draper,  the  publisher.  For  this  and  other 
suggestions  the  translator  is  deeply  indebted  to  both 
these  gentlemen. 


translator's  preface.  vii 

While  he  has  labored  for  correctness,  the  translator 
can  hardly  hope  that  he  has  absolutely  avoided  over- 
sights, tp  say  nothing  of  infelicities.  For  the  pointing 
out  of  such  oversights  he  will,  of  course,  be  grateful. 

In  the  references  given  in  foot-notes  the  object  has 
been,  for  the  most  part,  to  direct  the  reader  to  trea- 
tises in  which  more  conservative  views  than  those  in 
the  text  are  presented.  From  the  frequent  reference  to 
this  work  the  reader  cannot  fail  to  observe  the  high 
estimate  that  the  translator  puts  upon  Smithes  Diction- 
ary  of  the  Bible ^  especially  the  greatly  improved  edition 
of  Hackett  and  Abbot.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  know  that 
Herzog's  illustrious  and  invaluable  Real-Encyklo- 
pddie  is  being  brought  out  in  a  greatly  improved 
edition.  The  English-reading  world  is  being  over- 
whelmed with  Commentaries.  In  addition  to  the  trans- 
lations that  have  appeared  and  are  appearing  of  the 
Commentaries  of  Olshausen,  Tholuck,  Keil  and  De- 
litzsch,  Lange,  Meyer,  Godet,  etc.,  the  Bible  (or  Speak- 
er's) Commentary,  proceeding  from  the  highest  Church 
of  England  authorities,  exceedingly  conservative,  and 
in  many  respects  very  valuable,  is  appearing.  A  Com- 
mentary of  high  character  on  the  whole  of  the  New 
Testament,  to  be  edited  by  President  Alvah  Hovey, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  and  to  be  prepared  by  the  ablest  Baptist 
scholars  in  America,  is  announced  for  publication  by 
the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society.  All  this, 
together  with  the  numberless  individual  enterprises, 
^ows  an  immense  acti\ity  among  the  English  and 


Viii  translator's  PREFACE. 

Americans  in  biblical  studies.  May  the  time  soon 
come  when  the  scholars  of  these  countries  shall  cease 
to  be  borrowers  more  than  lenders. 

In  the  notes  in  which  the  names  of  some  American 
scholars  are  mentioned  it  was  not  meant  to  depreciate 
those  that  are  not  mentioned.  A  number  of  others 
just  as  able  —  some  who  are  known  by  their  writings, 
some  who  are  not  thus  known — might  have  been  added 
in  each  instance. 

In  conclusion,  the  book  is  sent  forth  with  the  hop© 
that  the  truths  that  it  contains  may  contribute  to  the 
progress  of  biblical  learning  in  our  land,  and  that  the 
errors  may  be  useful  by  being  brought  out  clearly  and 
without  disguise.  To  combat  errors  successfully  in 
their  concrete  form,  it  is  highly  important  that  we 
know  the  abstract  principles  on  which  they  rest. 

A.  H.  NEWMAN. 
EocHESTBB,  N.  T.,  May  1877. 


PREFACE 


Whether  a  work  on  New  Testament  Hermeneutics, 
Buch  as  I  here  offer  to  the  scientific  public,  is,  after  so 
many  performances  of  this  kind,  a  desideratum,  and 
whether  this  work  corresponds  to  the  desideratum  and 
to  the  cherished  expectations,  others  will  decide.  After 
what  has  been  accomplished  in  this  department  since 
Ernesti,  by  Keil,  Dopke,  Pareau,  Klausen,  Lutz, 
Schleiermacher  (ed.  Liicke),  LUcke  himself,  Davidson, 
and  Wilke,  —  not  to  speak  of  Olshausen  and  R.  Stier 
—  a  work  like  mine  might  in  fact  be  designated  as 
something  superfluous.  It  might  even  be  shown  that 
on  the  principles  and  the  methods  of  biblical  exegesis 
perfect  unanimity  has  long  prevailed  among  all  respec- 
table interpreters. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  will  not  refer  to  the  unnum- 
bered differences  in  the  conception  of  many  passages ; 
for  despite  all  that  the  best  hermeneutics  may  ever 
accomplish,  men  will  never  come  to  perfect  certainty 
and  unanimity  ;  but  I  will  point  to  the  great  questions 
still  continually  in  dispute,  whether  the  so-called  theo- 
logical or  the  grammatico- historical  interpretation 
should  have  the    precedence    in    the   exegetical  pro- 

(ix) 


X  PREFACE. 

cedure,  whether  in  the  exegetical  procedure  a  definite 
theory  on  Scripture  should  or  should  not  be  made  the 
basis. 

As  regards  the  literature  in  this  field  of  inquiry,  the' 
treatises  of  Schleiermacher  and  Lutz,  as  is  well-known, 
are  opera  posthuma,  and  the  excellent  men,  if  they  had 
wished  to  commit  these  works  to  publicity,  would  have 
found  many  things  to  be  filed  down,  some  to  be 
expressed  more  clearly  and  unambiguously.  Never- 
theless, the  hermeneutical  writings  of  these  two  men 
have  their  great  value  ;  that  of  Schleiermacher  is  full 
of  genial  thoughts  and  brilliant  apen^us^  as  is  everything 
that  proceeded  from  this  great  theologian  ;  that  of  Lutz, 
my  never-to-be-forgotten  teacher,  is  distinguished  for  phi- 
lological accuracy,  theological  depth,  and  practical  sub- 
stantiality.^ But  as  the  former  is  defective  in  accurate 
proofs  and  in  substantiality,  so  the  latter  —  apart  from 
the  faultiness  of  form  —  bears  in  itself  the  coloring  of 
its  time,  inasmuch  as  it  could  have  regard  only  to  the 
phenomena  of  the  first  four  decades  of  the  present  cen- 
tury. The  same  may  be  said  of  Liicke's  Hermeneutik, 
which  took  a  decidedly  anti-rationalistic  attitude  with- 
out being  able  to  have  regard  to  the  opposite  errors 
that  have  since  come  forward.^  With  Klausen  the 
history  of  hermeneutics  takes  up  so  much  space,  that 
hCrmeneutics  itself  can  be  treated  only  in  a  sketchy 

J  It  {^ivcs  me  pleasure  to  have  found  in  Diestel  (Gesch.  des  A.T.,  632)  a 
full  rccojrnition  of  the  work  of  my  honored  teacher. 

'^  This  latter  Lucke  did  accomplish  to  some  extent  at  a  later  period,  in 
his  Christmas  Programme  of  1853. 


PREFACE.  Xi 

and  formal  way.  Finally,  with  reference  to  the  two 
works  of  Wilke  ("  Neutestamentliche  Rhetorik  "  and 
*' Hermeneutik  des  Neuen  Testamentes  "),  it  may  be 
said  that  they  are  both  noted  for  rich  materials  and 
great  rigor;  yet  the  "Rhetoric"  suffers  from  an  almost 
hair-splitting  subtlety,  and  the  "  Hermeneutics  "  in  its 
doctrinal  part  lacks  substantiality,  and  has  entered  too 
little  upon  fundamental  questions. 

Attempting,  as  I  now  do,  to  supply  the  defects  men- 
tioned, and  to  obviate  the  errors  and  distortions  that 
have  appeared  in  this  department,  especially  in  more 
recent  times,  and  which  even  now  lay  claim  to  a  sort 
of  monopoly,  I  owe  the  reader  an  account  of  the  prin- 
ciples that  have  guided  me.  The  history  of  Scripture 
interpretation  from  the  beginning  down  to  the  present 
day  teaches  that  all  differences  in  the  treatment  of 
Scripture  have  proceeded  from  different  views  of  Scrip- 
ture itself,  and  that  these  may  be  reduced  to  two  fun- 
damental aspects  —  the  dogmatic  and  the  historical. 
Proceeding  now  as,  according  to  my  firm  conviction, 
we  must  proceed  from  the  historical  aspect,  and  hence 
regarding  exegesis  as  in  the  first  instance  a  historical 
science,  we  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  implying 
that  in  the  Scriptures  we  have  to  do  merely  with  the 
opinions  oi  the  Hebrews  and  of  the  early  Christians, 
but  that  the  eternal  and  saving  truth  itself,  appearing 
as  it  does  in  national,  temporal,  and  individual  forms, 
has  a  histori/,  and  that  the  revelation  from  which  the 
Scriptures  sprung,  as  well  as  the  Scriptures  themselves, 


Xii  PREFACE. 

in  their  totality  as  in  their  individual  parts,  are  a  his- 
torical fact.  To  understand  this  fact,  to  think  himself 
into  the  same,  renouncing  all  traditional  or  subjective 
prepossessions,  is  the  interpreter's  task,  and  to  make 
this  task  plain  in  its  various  aspects  was  my  endeavor. 
But  if  the  various  methods  of  interpretation  may  be 
referred  to  the  various  views  of  Scripture,  these  views 
themselves  rest  —  as  I  am  convinced  —  on  the  differ- 
ence of  opinion  on  the  question  :  how  the  religious 
interest  is  to  be  related  to  the  scientific  work  of  the 
interpreter.  Hence,  on  the  one  hand  the  demand  that 
the  Scriptures  be  regarded  as  a  holy  book,^  to  the 
neglect  of  the  historical  realities  that  yet  meet  the 
interpreter  at  every  step;  on  the  other  hand,,  the 
demand  that  the  latter  moment  should  constitute  the 
interpreter's  essential  work,  and  that  the  religious 
contents  should  either  be  entirely  neglected  or  be 
brought  forward  as' a  mere  idea  of  the  time.  It  seemed 
justifiable  to  me,  therefore,  to  devote  a  section  to  the 
fundamental  question  as  to  the  relation  of  the  religious 
to  the  scientific  in  the  treatment  of  Scripture. 

But  if,  now,  a  hermeneutical  treatise  resting  on  this 
principal  point  of  view  is  to  be  fruitful,  it  must  not 
move  on  the  field  of  mere  theory,  nor  ]:)ring  mere 
abstmct  recepta  to  the  treatment  of  this  or  tliat  critical 
or  exegetical  difficulty,  but  it  must  be  as  substantial  as 
possiljle,  and  this  not  only  tlirough  collecta  on  tlie  lin- 
guistic uF,age  of  the  different  New  Testament  authors, 

1  Gotterliillt—  God-lilled,  throu-rh  and  throuiili  divine.  —  Tb. 


PREFACE.  XIU 


such  as  have  been  made  with  approximate  complete- 
ness by  Wilke,  but  also  and  chiefly  through  practical 
attention  to  the  application  of  the  most  important  exe- 
getical  rules.  These  examples  could  have  been  multi- 
plied, but  I  refrained  from  adding  to  them  not  merely 
with  a  view  not  to  allow  my  book  to  swell  to  too  great 
a  bulk,  but  also  in  order  to  leave  room  for  the  young 
exegetes  to  apply  the  hermeneutical  principles  inde- 
pendently to  other  passages. 

The  design  to  make  my  text-book  useful  even  for 
beginners  in  exegesis  necessitated  the  introduction  of 
much  that  is  self-intelligible  to  more  practised  theolo- 
gians, and  to  those  that  have  made  a  specialty  of  this 
department.  In  general  to  students  and  to  practical 
clergymen  it  offers  much,  as  I  hope,  that  they  can  use, 
but  to  professional  theologians  very  little.  For  the 
former,  therefore,  is  my  book  chiefly  intended. 

I  regret  that  Weiffenbach's  "  Zukunftsgedanke  Jesu," 
Gebhardfs  "  Lehrbegriff  dcr  Apokalypse,"  Hausrath's, 
continuation  of  his  New  Testament  History  under  the 
-  title  "  Die  Zeit  der  Martyrer  und  das  nachapostolische 
Zeitalter,"  as  well  as  Renan's  "  L' Antichrist,"  came  too 
late  to  be  of  service  in  the  preparation  of  this  work.  I 
shall  be  criticised,  moreover,  for  having  made  so  little 
special  reference  to  the  literature  of  my  subject ;  but  it 
will  at  least  be  found  that  the  clumsiness,  which  would 
thus  have  arisen,  has  been  avoided. 

Defects  and  imperfections,  doubtless,  adhere  to  my 
work, —  such  as  1  myself  recognize,  but  cannot  now 


2 


XIV  PREFACE. 

remedy,  and  such  as  will  be  observed  by  more  com- 
petent judges.  A  real  and  well-grounded  criticism,  be 
it  never  no  sharp,  can  be  only  welcome  to  me.  But 
criticisms  that  only  wrest  here  and  there  a  passage  out 
of  the  connection,  and,  according  to  such  contrivance, 
pronounce  upon  the  "  orthodoxy "  or  the  "  hetero- 
doxy" of  the  author,  or  which  examine  my  writing  with 
a  view  to  ascertaining  whether  I  belong  to  the  right  or 
.the  left  or  the  "mediating"  theology, —  such  criticisms 
must  I  simply  consign  to  the  waste-paper  basket. 


THE  AUTHOR. 


Been,  on  the  Centennial  Anniversary  of  the 
Suppression  of  the  Order  of  Jesuits  by  Clement  xrv. 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction,  .•••••••••l 

Tart  J. — The  General  Principles  of  Hermeneutics,    5 

1.  The  Office  of  the  Interpreter  in  General, .        •        •        •        6 

2.  The  Right  View  of  Scripture, 12 

3.  The  Interpretation  of  Scripture  in  General,  and  of  the 

New  Testament  in  Particular, 28 

a)  History  of  Scripture  interpretation  in  con- 
nection with  the  present  idea  of  Scripture,      29 
P)  Results  from  the  history  of  exegesis  for 
the  nature  and  the  principles  of  Scrip- 
ture interpretation,       ....       83 
Review    of   the    various    exegetical 

methods, 83 

The  right  exegetical  stand-point,       •       90 
The  exegetical  statement,  .        .100 

Part  II.— The  Single  Operations  of  the  Scripture 

Interpreter, 104 

1.  The  Criticism  of  the  Text, 104 

2.  The  Grammatical  Explanation, 124 

A.  The  Linguistic  Character  of  the  New  Testament,      .     124 
a)  The  character  of  the  New  Testament  language 

in  general, 124 

h)  The  linguistic  peculiarities  of  the  various  New 

Testament  writers, 132 

XV 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

2.  The  Grammatical  Explanation  —  continued.  j.ao». 

B.  Helps  to  the  Explanation, 144 

a)  The  internal  helps,  .        .        .        •        .        .     144 

a)  The  connection, 144 

/3)  The  parallel  passages,  .  .  .  .159 
Old  Testament  citations,    .        .        .166 

6)  The  external  helps,  .        •        •        •        .     183 

a)   General  helps, 185 

fi)  Special  helps, 187 

C.  The  Exegetlcal  Judgment, 190 

S.  The  Logical  Explanation, 198 

a)  Explanation  of  the  connection  of  the  single 
thoughts  among  themselves. 

The  rhetorical, .... 
The  dialectic,     .... 
Conjunctions,     .... 
Participial  relations, . 
5)  Ascertaining  the  course  of  thought  of  an  entire 

section, 

c)  Discovery  of  the  intention  and  the  fundamental 
thought  of  a  section,     .... 
a)  Discovery  of  the  fundamental  thought  of 

a  parable, 

ft)  Intention  of  other  doctrinal  sections, 
y)  Intention  of  prophetical  sections,     . 

4.  The  Real-explanation, 

a)  The  physical  and  the  geographical, 
h)  The  historical  and  the  chronological, 
c)  The  influence  of  the  ideal  on  the  historical, 

a)  Influence  of  the  religious  popular  spirit  on 

the  historical  representation,        .         .     298 
/3)  Influence  of  the  individual  spirit  of  the 

author  on  the  historical  representation,    308 


CONTENTS.  XVU 

5.  The  ascertaining  of  the  Object  and  the  Intention  of  an 

entire  Writing, 310 

a)  The  intention  of  doctrinal  writings,         .         .312 

h)  The  intention  of  historical  writings,         ^         .  323 

c)  The  intention  of  the  Apocalypse,     .        •        •  330 

Part  III.  — The  Religious  Understanding,  .       .339 

1.  The  Religious  Interest  as  motive  to  Scripture  Study,        .  341 

The  religious  interest,        .         .         .341 

The  laic  understanding,     .         ,        .  345 

Motive  to  Scripture  study,         .         .  346 

2.  The  Relation  of  the  Religious  Interest  to  the  Exegetical 

Work, 349 

3.  The  Theological  Understanding  (a?  product  of  Religious 

Interest  and  Scientific  Labor),       .        .        .        .        .  360 
a)  The  theological  understanding  proper,     .         .  3G0 
6)  The  impartation  of  the  theological  understand- 
ing to  others,        .••.••  370 

Scientific, 370 

Practical,  .        ...         .         .  372 

Conclusion,      •        . 376 

Appendix. — A  Summary  of  the  Leading  Peculiarities  of  New 
Testament  Greek  Grammar,  fi:om  Notes  of  Dr.  J.  A. 

Broadus, 378 

Index  of  Scripture  Passages  treated  of, 383 

General  Index,       .        •        •        • 385 


INTRODUCTION. 


I.    Importance  of  Spiritual  Intercourse. 

The  most  important  means  of  intellectual  and  moral  progress 
is  spiritual  intercourse.  Undoubtedly  immediate  and  daily  in- 
tercourse with  other  men  guards  us  from  narrowness  and  one- 
sided'ness,  enriches  our  store  of  ideas  and  thou'ghts,  and  tones 
down  the  asperities  of  our  characters.  Especially  is  this  the 
case  if  he  with  whom  we  associate  is  a  choice  spirit.  Such 
association  may  have  for  its  obiect  either  general  enrichment  Objects, 

*'  ,       ^   ''  "^  general  and 

and  elevation,  or  only  special  instruction.  Both  are  necessary,  special, 
and  the  more  the  special  instruction  received  passes  over  into 
our  general  culture,  and,  vice  versa^  the  more  our  general  cul- 
ture culminates  in  one  sort  of  knowledge,  or  in  one  qualification, 
the  more  perfectly  is  the  object  of  that  enriching  fulfilled. 
Our  spiritual  intercourse  will  consist  fully  as  much  in  reading  Reading, 
as  in  personal  association.  And,  indeed,  intercourse  with 
eminent  spirits  of  the  past,  and  of  antiquity,  is  very  important, 
for  the  reason  that  we  are  thereby  compelled  to  lose  sight  of 
the  interests  of  the  present,  and  to  become  absorbed  in  an 
altogether  different  circle  of  conceptions  and  interests.  The 
interests  of  the  present,  indeed,  have  also  their  claims,  and  it  is 
our  duty  to  be  concerned  in  these.  But  if  he  alone  is  worthy 
to  be  called  cultivated  who  is  not  entirely  absorbed  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  day,  but  who  understands  remote  times  and 
interests  as  well,  then  it  is  a  requisite  of  culture  lovingly  to 
associate  with  the  great  spirits  of  the  past.  This,  indeed,  con-  Value  of 
stitutes  in  general  the  educating  value  of  history,  that  it  trans- 
poses us  into  various  and  in  part  remote  times,  and  makes  us, 
-     - ^    ■■        -      "  1"   ■ 


INTRODUCTION. 


SO  to  speak,  universal  men.  But  there  is  still  another  interest 
besides  the  general  one  of  culture,  that  requires  us  to  occupy 
ourselves  with  the  spirits  of  the  past ;  many  of  these  have  exer- 
cised a  strong  influence  on  succeeding  history,  and  will  continue 
to  exercise  such  an  influence  to  the  end  of  time.  Think  of  the 
influence  of  Hellenism  upon  our  aesthetic  culture,  of  the  influ- 
ence of  Roman  law  on  our  views  of  law,  and  the  consequent 
influencp  of  importance  of  the  sources  of  Roman  law.  No  kind  of  litera- 
tures, ture  has  exercised  so  general  and  so  efficient  an  influence  on  the 
Western  nations  as  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  Scriptures,  and 
this  influence  is  permanent.  Hence  the  great  importance  of 
understanding  these  writings. 

2.    Difficulty  or  perfect  Comprehension. 

But  important  as  is  this  understanding,  it  is  in  many  respects 
Diversities  very  difficult.  Even  in  personal  intercourse  comprehension  is 
occasionally  imperfect;  this  imperfection  arises  now  from  diver- 
sity of  individualities  in  general,  now  from  obscurity  of  expression 
in  particular  ;  and  yet  tone  and  gesture  here  aid  comprehension 
not  a  little.  StOl  more  difficult  is  it  for  persons  of  different 
degrees  and  kinds  of  culture  to  understand  each  other ;  the 
uneducated  often  fail  to  understand  the  educated  because  the 
latter  have  at  their  disposal  a  multitude  of  conceptions,  thoughts, 
and  expressions  foreign  to  the  former.  So  also  it  is  often  with 
great  difficulty  that  the  man  of  practical  education  and  the  mau 
of  liberal  education  understand  each  other  perfectly,  not  merely 
because  each  lacks  certain  positive  information  which  the  other 
possesses,  but  because  each  is  at  home  in  a  different -circle  of 
thoughts.  Precise  understanding  also  is  often  difficult  between 
persons  of  different  nationality.  Here,  of  course,  the  chief 
difficulty  is  usually  the  language ;  and  even  if  the  one  has 
learned  and  understands  the  language  of  the  other,  yet  it  is 
very  seldom  that  he  possesses  it  as  completely  as  his  vernacu- 
lar. He  will  often  understand  the  other  only  from  the  point 
of  view  of  his  own  idiom.  But  this  is  only  a  mediate  and 
therefore  imperfect  understanding.  Every  linguist  knows  that 
a  good  translation  from  one  language  into  another  is  no  easy 


of  culture, 


in  degree, 


in  kind; 


of  nation- 
ality. 


Transla- 
tiou. 


INTRODUCTION.  3. 

matter,  and  that  many  apparently  equivalent  words  in  different 
languages  are  yet  not  precisely  identical.  Take,  for  example.  Finer 
the  French  '•  esprit,"  and  the  German  "  Geist " ;  the  French  meaning. 
"  raison "  and  the  German  "  Vernunft."  T7e  see  this  prin- 
ciple exemplified  also  in  certain  ideas  in  ecclesiastical  Greek 
and  Latin,  which  are  indeed  analogous,  but  which  do  not  per- 
fectly coincide,  as  //.vo-rr/ptov  and  sacramentum,  /Mcravota  and 
poenitentia,  even  ttio-ti?  and  fides.  No  man  has  a  right  to 
claim  a  true  understanding  of  a  foreign  idiom  who  is  not  famil- 
iar with  these  finer  distinctions  ;  who.  in  general,  is  not  familiar 
with  the  different  genius  of  the  two  languages.  All  these  Antiquity, 
difficulties  are  multiplied  when  we  have  to  do  with  an  ancient 
author,  since  here  with  the  differences  of  language  and  of 
nationality  are  united  the  differences  of  the  time,  its  concep- 
tions and  interests.  We  meet  much,  indeed,  that  is  not  foreign 
to  us,  but  which,  on  the  contrary,  seems  so  familiar  that  we  are 
tempted  to  transfer  it  in  toto  to  the  ideas  of  our  time,  or  to 
conceive  of  it  from  our  own  stand-point,  even  when  it  rests 
upon  different  conditions,  and  stands  in  connection  with  dif- 
ferent conceptions. 

3.    Interpretation,  a  removing  of  Differences. 

Every  interpretation,  therefore,  accepts  as  its  task,  to  re- 
move the  differences  between  us  and  the  author.     This  mav  be  Two 

^  ,  .  "  methods, 

done  either  by  transferring  the  author  into  our  time,  language, 

and  modes  of  thought,  so  that  we  let  him  speak  and  think  as  if 
he  were  one  of  us  ;  or  by  abstracting  ourselves  from  our  con- 
ceptions, from  our  modes  of  speech  and  thought,  and  by  trans- 
posing ourselves  into  his  time  and  his  spirit.  It  is  easy  to  see  '^^^^^^^^ 
that  the  latter  is  the  true  method  ;  yet  we  cannot  possibly  dis- 
pense with  the  former.  Every  translation,  indeed,  is  a  trans- 
ferring of  the  author  from  his  own  language  into  ours ;  and 
not  only  into  our  language,  but  where  it  is  possible  into  our 
methods  of  thought ;  but  translations  aside,  how  otherwise  can 
we  transpose  ourselves  into  the  author  and  his  world  than  in 
thought  ?  and  thinking  we  conduct  in  our  own  language.  It  ^I'jf.^^g^^t"^" 
follows,  that  both  methods  must  be  combined,  but  so  that  we 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

begin  with  the  first,  and  continue  thus  only  until  we  are  in  a 

condition  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  second.     Yet  how  are  we  to 

proceed  in  order  to  remove  the  differences  between  ourselves 

and  a  given  author  ?     Every  one  who  has  any  experience  in 

exegesis  knows  too  that  it  is  nowise  a  matter  of  indifference 

which  road  is  taken.     And  since  in  most  cases  it  is  incumbent 

upon  the  interpreter  to  arrive  at  an  understanding  of  the  author 

(especially  of  the  New  Testament),  not  for  himself  only,  but  also 

for  others,  it  is  doubly  necessary  that  he  be  in  possession  of 

Biscof  Her-  the  right  method.     From  this  need  the  science  of  Hermeneutics 
meneutics.  ®  ^^      ^^  .       ,. ,  1,^1. 

has  arisen.  Yet  Hermeneutics  did  not  then  first  begin  to  exist. 
Practice  has  always  preceded  theory ;  just  as  preaching  was 
prior  to  Plomiletics,  reasoning  to  Logic,  poetry  to  Poetics,  so 
Exegesis  existed  before  exegetical  Methodics.  Every  sound 
theory  presupposes  practice,  and  is  either  the  abstraction  from 
the  present  ideal  practice,  as  e.g.  the  Poetics  of  Aristotle,  or  it 
is  the  negation,  drawn  from  manifold  errors  and  misconceptions, 
of  these  false  methods,  and  the  setting  up  of  their  opposites. 
But  as  practice  precedes  every  theory,  so  also  practice  precedes 
all  understanding  and.  all  usefulness  of  the  theory,  and  accord- 
ingly only  those  can  derive  real  benefit  from  Hermeneutics,  who 
already  possess  some  experience  and  discipline  in  Exegesis. 


PAET   I 


THE 

GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

4.  Controversy  concerning  Interpretation. 

Since   Ernesti  there   has   been   much   controversy   as   to 

whether  Scripture  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  same 

principles  as  other  literature,  or  whether,  in  consideration  of 

the  fact  that  the  Bible  is  a  holy  and  inspired  book,  we  must 

here  proceed  according  to  another  method.     In  this  general 

form  the  question  is  not  to  be  answered.     Granted  that  the  Thp  spirit 
.    .  ,  ,  ,  different. 

spirit  of  the  Bible  is  thoroughly  different  from  that  of  the 

Greek  and  Roman  classics,  and  that  the  former  is  related  to 

the  latter  as  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  spirit  of  the  world,  yet 

no  one  can  claim  that  the  sacred  writers  could  express  the 

divine  thous^hts  anv  otherwise  than  in  human  languaee.  and  The 

.  .  o      »   '  language 

that,  too,  in  the  language  of  their  times  and  of  the  people  for  human, 
whom  their  writings  were  intended.  Accordingly,  the  language 
in  which  the  sacred  authors  wrote  must  be  examined  in  the 
same  way  as  the  language  of  related  authors.  The  interpreter 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  no  less  than  the  interpreter  of  Thu- 
cydides,  Plato,  and  Demosthenes,  needs,  first  of  all,  the  gram- 
mar and  the  dictionary,  and,  as  the  latter,  so  the  former,  must 
depend  upon  the  linguistic  usage  and  the  connection  for  ascer-  Linguistic 

..,  .  .,  *.■!"  -I.  usage  and 

tainmg  the  sense  in  particular  cases.     Again,  the  sacred  writers  connection, 
lived  —  it  may  be  that  they  were  also  so  inspired  —  in  certain 
national  and  historical  relations ;  and  no  less  than  the  inter-  National 

and   his- 

preter  of  Demosthenes  does  the  interpreter  of  Isaiah  or  of  toHcai  rela- 

.  .  .  .  tiona. 

Paul  require  for  the  right  understanding  of  his  author  a  knowl- 
1*  5 


6 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 


Order  of 
sequence. 


edge  of  the  national  and  historical  relations  under  which  he 
lived.  Then  he  must,  of  course,  search  out  the  peculiar  spirit 
that  animated  his  author.  It  is  asked,  Which  ought  to  have 
precedence  with  the  interpreter,  the  knowledge  of  the  spirit  or" 
the  knowledge  of  the  human  and  the  temporal  in  his  author? 
We  answer,  that,  although  with  the  author  the  spirit  and  the 
thought  were  first  and  the  human  representation  second,  with 
the  interpreter  the  human  expression  and  the  temporal  repre- 
sentation is  the  first,  and  the  spirit  can  only  be  the  second 
Human  eie-  matter  that   he   has   to    investicrate.     As  reorards  the  human 

xnents.  ^  ®  ® 

elements,  he  is  hound  hy  precisely  the  same  laws  as  the  inter- 
preter of  a  profane  author,  and  so  far  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture  is  only  a  species  of  the  genus  "  interpretation."  But 
then  it  is  indispensable  to  penetrate  into  the  circle  of  thought 

Bpiritofthe  and  the  spirit  of  the  writing  under  consideration,  hence  it  is  in- 

^^  ^'  dispensable  to  penetrate  into  the  essence  and  spirit  as  well  as 

into  the  external  phenomena  of  the  Bible ;  and  thus  may  be 

shown  as  well  what  Scripture  interpretation  has  in  common 

with  all  other  interpretation  as  what  it  has  that  is  peculiar. 

Divisions.    Accordingly  we  treat,  1)    of  interpretation  in  general; 

2)  of  the  nature  of  Scripture  as  a  special  object  of  interpre- 
tation, and  3)  of  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  and  its 
office,  how  this  has  been  discovered  pnly  gradually  and  after 
manifold  experiments  and  failures,  and  how  it  may  be  most 
successfully  protected  from  further  errors. 


1.  The  Office  of  the  Interpreter  in  general. 

5.    Differences  to  be  removed. 

To  explain  an  author  is,  to  remove  the  difference  between 
language,  him  and  us.  This  difference  is,  a)  the  difference  of  lan- 
guage. To  know  the  language  of  the  author  in  its  difference 
from  our  own,  as  well  as  its  relationship,  is  the  first  necessary 
qualification  of  an  exegete.  But  language,  now,  is  partly  a 
national  possession,  partly  an  organ  which  the  given  author 
manipulates  in  his  own  way,  and  finally  modifies  it  according  to 
the  individual  thought  that  is  about  to  be  expressed.     But  as  a 


THE  interpreter's   WORK   IN   GENERAL.  7 

national  possession  language  has  a  history,  and  it  is  therefore 
necessary  to  have  an  insight  into  this  history,  as  particularly  mto 
that  stage  of  it  to  which  the  author  belongs.  But  every  author 
uses  this  common  property  in  a  peculiar  way,  the  more  so  the 
more  genius  he  possesses.  This  imposes  upon  the  interpreter  the 
duty  of  familiarizing  himself  with  the  special  linguistic  usage  Linguistic 
of  his  author.  Finally  the  expression  is  modified  according  to 
the  individual  thought,  according  to  the  object  that  the  author 
has  in  view.  Hence  the  importance  of  attending  to  the  connec- 
tion.    But  the  difference  to  be  removed  is,         b)  a  difference  Time  and 

.    .  historical 

also  of  time  and  of  historical  relations.    This  imposes  upon  the  relations, 
interpreter  the  duty  of  making  clear  these  historical  relations 
themselves,  and  especially  the  attitude  of  the  author  towards 
the  national,  political,  and  religious  relations.     The  difference 

which    the  interpreter  has  to  remove,   is  c)   that  of   the  Views  and 

*■  ,       .  ^  convictions. 

views,  convictions,  and  manner  of  thinking.  It  may  well  hap- 
pen that  the  interpreter  entirely  agrees  with  certain  thoughts 
and  instructions  of  his  author,  that  he  feels  himself  addressed 
and  carried  along,  or  that  he  finds  therein  a  support  for  his 
own  views.     But  the  interpreter,  at  least  in  the  first  instance.  Personal 

feelings  to 

should  not  pay  too  much  attention  to  these  f eelmi^s,  and  m  no  be  disre- 
•  ^     ,  ,      P     ,  ,  ,  .  ,  garded. 

case,  if  the  word  of  the  author  seems  to  him  a  welcome  con- 
firmation of  his  own  view,  must  he  forthwith  interpret  the  author 
according  to  this  view.  The  interpeter  must,  above  all,  never 
forget  that  the  sense  of  the  author  is  a  historical  fact,  and  that  the 
interpretation  is  properly  nothing  else  than  a  piece  of  historical 
inquiry.      Lastly,  d)  the  interpreter  has  to  remove  the  A  priori 

difference  between  the  work  of  the  author  and  his  own  view 
of  the  matter.  The  work  of  the  author  in  its  totality  is  just 
a  historical  fact,  and  is  to  be  treated  as  sucii.  In  this,  the 
more  perfectly  the  interpreter  can  abstract  himself  from  his 
own  oj)inions  or  knowledge,  and,  by  virtue  of  his  historical 
information,  can  throw  himself  into  his  author  and  his  time, 

the  more  successful  will  he  be.     The  task  is  to  understand  the  Fundamen- 
tal thoughts 
autlior  according  to  his  fundamental  thoughts  and  according  and  compo- 

to  his  composition.     This  is  the  highest  and  most  difficult  office 


8 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF  HERMBNEUTICS. 


Affinity 
witli  the 
author. 


Apparent 
contradic- 
tion. 


of  Scripture  interpretation.  To  this  one  attains  only  by- 
degrees,  ascending,  in  the  first  instance,  from  the  understanding 
of  the  individual  parts  to  that  of  the  totality,  and  then  de- 
scending from  the  aggregate  impression  to  the  individual  parts, 
—  a  process  that  is  to  be  several  times  repeated.  But  as  only 
kindred  spirits  understand  each  other,  so  also  there  must  be 
a  certain  affinity  between  the  interpreter  and  his  author,  in 
order  that  the  difference  may  be  really  removed,  i.e.  that  a  true 
understanding  may  be  attained.  He  who  has  no  poetical  sense 
will  not  understand  a  Homer  or  a  Pindar;  he  who  has  no 
philosophical  spirit  will  not  understand  a  Plato  or  an  Aristotle ; 
just  as  little  will  a  Demosthenes  or  a  Cicero  be  understood  by 
one  who  has  no  understanding  for  political  relations  and 
agitations.  So  also  the  New  Testament  is  to  be  understood 
only  by  him  who  has  the  religious  sense,  and  indeed  religious 
sense  of  a  particular  kind,  —  who  knows  from  experience  the 
feeling  of  sin  and  the  need  of  forgiveness  and  grace.  This  re- 
quirement, now,  seems  to  stand  in  contradiction  with  that  laid 
down  above  —  that  the  interpreter  is  to  regard  and  treat  the 
object  to  be  interpreted  entirely  as  a  historical  fact.  This  ap- 
parent contradiction  disappears  when  we  consider  that  this  spir- 
itual kinshijD  cannot  exist  previously,  and  can  only  appear  when 
the  author  to  be  interpreted  is  already,  in  a  general  way  at 
least,  well-known,  and  that  this  spiritual  relationship  works 
a  love,  which  far  from  drawing  the  author  to  itself,  resigns 
itself  v^iihev  to  the  author. 

6.   Methods  of  procedure. 

Tliese  are  only  the  general  offices  and  requirements  of  the 

interpreter.     But   how,  now,  is  the   investigation  itself  to   be 

Helps  to  be  performed  ?         a)  It  is  self-evident  that  it  cannot  be  done 

used. vet  not  771  1  ii-ip-i 

without  helps;  but  never  must  the  exegete  lose  himself  in  these, 
nor  is  he  to  make  himself  too  dependent  on  them ;  they  are  to 
be  to  him  not  sources,  but  mere  helps.  His  centre  of  gravity 
must  never  be  in  anybody's  commentary,  but  in  the  author 
himself.  This  independence  of  exegetical  helps  can  be  attained 
only  by  accustoming  oneself  to  examine  every  thought  of  the 


slavishly. 


THE  INTERPRETER'S  WORK  IN  GENERAL.  9 

author  first  without  a  commentary,  and  by  exerting  oneself 
to  the  utmost  to  understand  these  thoughts.  Only  thus  can 
he  know  why  he  takes  counsel  of  his  commentary,  and  upon 
what  questions  he  seeks  information.  Only  thus  can  he  judge 
how  far  the  exegetical  helj^  consulted  really  affords  informa- 
tion,        h)   Since  we  ;2;et  at  the  thoughts  of  the  author  only  Grammati- 

,      /  -,.  *     T.         .     .  .  ,      .  ,  :    cal  sense, 

througn  the  medmm  of   hnguistic  expression,  and  since  this 

rests  on  grammatical  laws,  we  are  never  to  give  place  to  in- 
vestigations and  discussions  with  regard  to  the  subject-matter, 
before  the  grammatical  sense  has  been  ascertained.  The  im- 
patience to  enter  immediately  upon  the  subject-matter  itself 
must  be  restrained  and  put  under  the  discij^line  of  the  spirit. 
Exceptional  cases  may  of  course  occur,  where  it  seems  that 
if  one  knew  what  the  author  means  he  would  also  know  what 
he  says.  But  these  exceptional  cases  are  to  be  regarded  as 
such,  and  even  there  all  grammatical  and  lexical  means  are  to 
be  first  applied,  before  it  is  attempted  to  approach  the  author 
from  another  side.  c)  In  general  the  different  kinds  of  Order  in 
investigations  —  the  grammatical,  the  real,  and  the  logical  —  tion. 
should  not  be  mixed  with  each  other.  The  helps  sometimes  give 
occasion  to  such  mixing,  suggesting,  as  they  do,  many  questions 
at  once.  But  for  the  fruitful  study  of  a  difiicult  passage  it  is 
esj)ecially  important  that  there  be  order  in  the  investigation. 

d)  Not  unfrequently  one  may  be  led  away  into  more  extended  Side  ques 

.       .  .  .     ,       ,.        .    .         ,  .        .     ,  ,  tious. 

mvestigations  on  a  critical,  a  linguistic,  a  historical,  or  archaeo- 
logical question.  Such  investigations  are  not  to  be  avoided, 
but  yet  the  principal  matter  is  to  be  kept  always  as  much  as 
possible  in  view.  In  such  investigations  it  may  happen  that 
the  object  is  not  reached,  but  a  discovery  is  made  in  another 
direction.  Such  a  discovery,  even  if  it  does  not  just  now  sub- 
serve any  purpose,  is  not  to  be  let  slip,  because  it  may  be  of 
value   on   another  occasion.  e)    Sometimes  a  light  seems  Flash  of 

to  flash  upon  a  difficult  point,  or  we  have  else  anticipated  a 
plausible  opinion  on  such  a  point.  Such  a  flash  of  genius  may, 
under  circumstances,  solve  a  difficulty  which  all  our  endeavors 
could   not   otherwise    have    solved.     But   the    correctness   of . 


10  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

such  a  flash  must  be  confirmed  through  investigation.  Every- 
thing will  thus  be  summoned  uj)  in  order  to  establish  that ;  and 
if  it  is  established,  it  affords  to  the  exegete  a  source  of  the 
greatest  satisfabtion.  But  this  is  not  always  the  case ;  and  if 
the  pre-conceived  view  is  not  confirmed,  the  exegete  must 
possess  love  for  truth  and  self-denial  enough  to  be  able  to  part 
with  a  darling  opinion.  The  attempt  to  sustain  such  an  opin- 
Segete.*^^  ion  at  all  hazards  is  not  ea:position  but  ^m position.  /)  All 
single  investigations  must  labor  towards  the  goal  of  the  most 
perfect  possible  understanding  of  the  whole.  Single  special 
investigations  also  which  offer  themselves  may  be  never  so 
important  and  interesting ;  to  the  interj^reter  as  such  they  are 
valuable  only  as  they  contribute  to  the  knowledge  of  the  author 
and  his  work.  On  the  other  hand,  they  may  serve  for  the 
enriching  and  clearing  up  of  another  department. 

7.    Exegetical  impartation. 

Exegetical   inquiry  has  for  its    principal  object  exegetical 

impartation  or  exhibition.     This  is  a  skill  to  be  attained  only 

through  practice.     Yet  some  j^rinciples  and  instructions  are  by 

Clear appre-  no  means  superfluous.         a)  Before  all  thinsfs  the  writins:  to 

hension.  ^  ^  o  o 

be  interpreted,  or  at  least  that  part  of  it  an  understanding  of 
which  he  wishes  to  communicate  to  others,  must  have  become 
Arrange-      as  clear  and  transparent  as  possible  to  the  exegete.         P)  He 
must  be  not'  only  in  mental  possession  of  the  essential  helps, 
but  he  must  have  so  arranged  them  in  his  mind  as  that  his . 
exegetical  aj^paratus  may  be  at  his  disposal  always,  in  the  right 
Character     place.         y)   He  must  know  the  nature  of  the />2fi/i*c  to  which 
ence.  he  is  about  to  communicate  the  understandin2j  of  a  writinjj^  or 

a  passage,  and  what  knowledge  he  may  presuppose  in  it ;  since 
if  he  is  to  impart  to  it  something  not  familiar,  and  to  be  un- 
derstood of  itself,  he  has,  on  the  other  hand,  to  give  it  every- 
thing of  which  he  may  assume  that  it  knows  either  not  at  all  or 
not  aright.  8)  If  therefore  the  public  is  a  learned  one,  or 
on  a  level  with  the  interpreter,  he  has  much  to  presuppose 
that  he  cannot  presujipose  in  other  hearers.  Does  the  audi- 
ence consist  of  young  men  just  entering  upon  the  science  he 


THE  INTERPRETER'S  WORK  IN  GENERAL.      11 

is  to  presuppose,  indeed,  all  elementary  knowledge,  but  yet 
not  much  that  is  to  be  presupposed  in  hearers  of  the  former 
kind.  If  there  the  procedure  may  have  an  eye  simply  to  the 
furtherance  of  the  science,  the  principal  aim  here  must  be  to 
introduce  the  hearers  into  exegetical  praxis  and  methods.  In 
an  illiterate  public,  on  the  other  hand,  no  knowledge,  indeed, 
must  be  presupposed ;  yet  others  than  theologians  will  hardly 
have  to  deal  with  such  a  case,  and  then  the  object  is  usually  the 
practical  one  of  edification.^  c)  But  be  the  audience  what  J5^J.\^^*°^°^ 
it  may,  the  interpreter  is  to  impart  to  it  not  all  the  work  that 
he  has  gone  through  with,  not  all  his  special  investigations, 
not  his  fruitless  efforts,  etc.,  but  only  that  which  ministers  to 
his  object.  t,)  Just  as  unnecessary  is  it  to  load  the  explana-  ^Jjf^oj^ 
tion  with  the  whole  ballast  that  the  exegetical  helps  furnish. 
False  and  perverse  explanations  are  to  be  entirely  set  aside. 
A  certain  completeness  is  desirable  only  in  very  vexed  and 
difficult  places,  yet  even  here  we  are  to  have  an  eye  to  the 
essential.  However  rich  the  exegetical  apparatus  may  be,  we 
should  always  see  to  it  that  the  author  himself  is  not  over- 
whelmed thereby.  rj)  The  exj^lanation  itself  must  be  so  JJ^^^^^^^  *<* 
ordered  that  first  the  grammatical  structure  and  the  verbal  transparent, 
sense  is  established  and  that  from  this  the  interpreter  may 
advance  to  the  explanation  of  the  subject-matter  and  to  the 
logical  explanation.  The  sense  of  the  author  must  become 
to  the  hearer  through  the  explanation,  as  it  were,  transparent, 
0)  Tlie  ideal  of  the  explanation  is  this :  that  the  hearer  be  led  J^^J^  j^^eal 
step  by  step,  and  in  an  inventive  way,  to  the  perfect  under- 
standing of  the  author,  so  that  he  may  believe,  as  it  were,  that 
he  has  found  it  out  himself.  True  exegesis  is  a  dialectic  pro- 
cess that  conducts  to  the  object  with  a  sort  of  inner  necessity. 
It  must  be  known  not  only  what  the  right  sense  is,  but  also 
why  it  is  so.  These  are  the  principles  and  rules  that  the  inter- 
preter of  Scripture  has  to  observe  in  precisely  the  same  manner 
as  the  interpreter  of  the  so-called  profane  authors.  Cf.  G. 
Hermanni  dissertatio  de  officio  interpretis,  1833. 

1  Hence  this  matter,  in  the  author's  view,  would  belong  more  naturally 
to  Homiletics.  —  Tn. 


12  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

2,  Tlie  right  View  of  Scinptitre,  and  especially  of  the 

JVeiv  Testament} 

8.    Radical  views  of  Scripture. 

Whatever  further  definitions  the  general  office  of  the  exef^ete 

receives  through  its  special  object,  the  Scriptures,  must  result 

Opposite      from  the  conception  of  the  latter.     The  views  that  men  have 

views.  ^ 

had  of  Scripture  have  at  all  times  exercised  an  essential  influ- 
ence on  the  treatment  and  the  explanation  of  Scripture.  If 
■♦  the  Church  regarded  the  Scriptures  as  through  and  through  an 

r^frSion^^"  i"sp"'6f^  book,  and  its  authors  as  merely  God's  amanuenses  and 
calami,  to  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dictated  all  and  everything  — 
contents  andexj^ression;  if,  accordingly,  the  whole  Bible,  from 
the  first  verse  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Revelation,  was  re- 
garded as  of  absolute  and  infallible  authority;  so  in  more 
recent  times  an  opposite  view  has  come  into  vogue,  viz.  that 

rat?onT^**  ^^^  Bible  is  altogether  a  human  book,  and  in  just  the  same 
way  a  literary  product  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  and  of  the 
primitive  Christians  as  the  writings  of  the  Greeks  and  the 
Romans  are  literary  products  of  these  peoples,  and  that  there- 

The  triTth     fore  it  is  to  be  treated  no  otherwise  than  these.     The  truth  is 

above  both. 

neither  on  the  one  side  nor  on  the  other,  nor  indeed  does  it  lie 
between  the  two,  but  rather  above  both,  so  that  the  one  view 
as  well  as  the  other  turns  aside  from  the  proper  conception. 
This  can  only  be  won  in  a  religio-historical  way. 

9.    Idea  of  Revelation. 

Eevelation.  "  Scripture  "  presupjDOses  a  revelation.  But  revelation  is  a 
new  truth  of  surpassing  importance,  that  so  seized  upon  and 
filled  the  mind  of  a  man  that  he  was  conscious,  not  of  having 
discovered  it  or  brought  it  forth  himself,  but  of  having  received 
it  from  above.  Such  a  revelation  it  was,  when  in  the  midst  of 
peoples,  which  were  given  to  a  sensuous  nature-worship,  the 
primitive  consciousness  of  the  one  God,  different  from  the 
world,  all-efficient  and  holy,  was  awakened  with  new  power, — 
the  consciousness  of  an  "  I "  above  all  other  "  I's,"  —  and  this 

I  Cf.  CelUrier,  Manuel  d'llermeneutique  Biblique,  p.  188  sqq.  —  Tr. 


EIGHT   VIEW  OF   SCRIPTURE.  13 

not  as  an  esoteric  doctrine,  but  as  a  possession  designed  for 
the  whole  people.  Through  this  the  descendants  of  Abraham  An  ideal 
became  the  possessors  of  an  ideal  good  of  infinite  worth  ;  they 
were  in  an  altogether  especial  sense  the  people  of  God.  Yet 
only  potentially  were  they  so  (Ex.  xix.  4-6).  Their  task  was 
now  to  become  actually  what  they  were  already  according  to  . 
their  destination,  "  a  holy  people  "  (Lev.  xi.  43-45  ;  xix.  2). 
This  so  happened  that  the  development  of  the  idea  of  the  people 
of  God  was  viewed  as  altogether  the  work  of  God,  the  difficulty 
of  this  development  as  entirely  the  fault  of  the  people :  in  en- 
tire opposition  to  the  history  of  other  peoples,  here  all  honor 
is  given  to  God  alone.  This  viewing  of  God  as  the  invisible 
King  of  the  people,  and  of  this  latter  as  the  object  of  his  guid- 
ance and  his  discipline,  could  be  no  merely  human  thought; 
it  must,  as  tbe  revelation  of  the  invisible  and  yet  all- efficient 

God,  be  itself,  in  turn,  a  divine  revelation.     A  revelation,  or  Divine  rev- 
elation, 
rather  a  whole  series  of  revielations,  it  was,  when  prophets  found 

themselves  called  and  impelled  to  hold  up  before  the  people  its 
sins,  to  proclaim  God's  penal  judgpient,  and  behind  this  the 
glorious  time  of  grace,  when  God  would  again  have  compas- 
sion upon  his  people,  and  both  theocratically  and  morally  re- 
store it.    Thus  the  prophetic  revelation  represented  the  history  History  of 

1-  -1  iir.i-11  tlie  people  a 

of  the  peojile  as  a  divme  guidance,  as  a  battle  of  God  as  tutor  divine  guid- 

with  his  stiff-necked  people.  To  this  prophetic  revelation,  to 
this  speaking  and  struggling  of  God  with  his  peojDlc,  corres- 
ponds^ with  the  pious  Israel,  a  spealdng  with  God,  which  as  a 
rule  could  have  happened  no  otherwise  than  in  poetical  form 
—  whether  the  pious  man  did  homage  to  God  irr  the  song  of 
praise,  or  in  still,  religious  satisfaction,  sang  of  his  safety  under 
the  protection  of  his  God,  or  struggled  in  a  hard  battle  of  faith 
and  an  ardent  longing  for  his  salvation,  or  sought  an  answer  to 
the  deepest  enigmas  of  life.    So  the  whole  history  of  this  people  strajr^linsr 

.  ...  ;.      ot  God  with 

in  the  light  of  the  revealing  Spirit,  —  on  the  one  hand  as  a  dis-  the  people. 
cipUnary  struggling  of  God  with  the  people^see  especially  Hosea 
and  Jeremiah),  on  the  other  hand  as  a  prayerful  struggling  of  ti^e 
of  the  people  with   God,  —  seems   prefiguratively  announced  uod. 
2 


14  GENERAL  PRNCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

Spirit  of      in  Gen.  xxxii.  24-32  coll.  IIos.  xii.  4,  5.     This  Holy  Spirit  of 
revelation.  ,  ,  .       ,  i     -r         i    •       i 

revelation,  ruling  over  and  in  the  people  Israel,  is  the  presup- 
position of  all  holy  Scripture. 

9.   Revelation  not  necessarily  written. 

In  such  divine  revelation  is  involved  no  necessity,  indeed,  of 

written  records.     Revelation  is  revelation  altogether  indepen- 

Scripture     dently  of  its  literary  fixing.     In  general  it  does  not  belong  to 

theocracy,    the  idea  of  revelation  to  be  written  ;  but  it  does  belong  to  the 

essence  of  the  theocracy.     The  most  fundamental  document  for 

and  in  Israel  is  the  two  tables  of  the  law,  written  at  the  first 

The  law,      constitution  of  the  people  of  God.     Of  no  other  document,  as 

of  this,  is  it  said,  it  was  written  with  the  finger  of  God  (Ex. 

xxxi.  18 — xxxii.  16).     If  later  still  many  laws  were  added, — 

and  "  the  book  of  the  law"  is  already  in  the  Pentateuch  many 

times  mentioned,  —  these  laws  ministered  less  to  the  object  of 

revelation,  and  in  a  higher  degree  to  the  unique  object  of  the 

theocracy.     To  the  theocratic  interest  even  the  oldest  historical 

records  (Ex.  xvii.  14 ;  Num.  xxxiii.  2  if.)  already  ministered. 

Eevelation    In    the   prophetic   revelation  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  it  was 

posterity.      Written  down  not  so  much  because  it  was  revelation,  as  because 

it  was  to  be  a  testimony  for  the  following  generations.     Tlie 

commands  of  God  to  the  prophets  to  record  the  revelations 

they  received  had  no  other  object  (so  Isa.  viii.  IG;  Ilab.  ii.  2, 

3  ;  Jer.  xxxvi.  2,  3  coll.  32).     If,  then,  whole  collections  of 

prophecies  were  recorded  —  nay,  if  such  as  the  visions  of  Eze- 

kiel  and  the  utterances  of  the  Babylonian  Isaiah  from  the  time 

of  the  Exile  were,  as  is  probable,  only  written  —  the  reason 

Poetry.        of  this  lay  simply  in  the  circumstances  of  the  times.     It  was 

otherwise  with  the  writing  down  of  songs  and  other  poetical 

pieces.     These  were  understood  to  be  not  so  much  revelations 

as  efi!usions  or  products  of  meditation  on   divine  and  human 

affairs.     So  then,  revelation  proper,  in   which  the   individual 

receiving  was  seized  and  held  by  the  higher  truth,  at  the  time 

of  its  blooming  was  not  confined  to  writing,  but  writing  was 
Oral  utter-  ,     ^  ,     .      •       -r        •       •        i      -T        i  , 

ance  and      subordinated  to  revelation.     Inspiration  had  to  do  much  more 
word.  with  the  oral  utterance  than  with  the  written  document,  and 


RIGHT  VIEW   OF   SCRIPTURE.  15 

the  form  in  which  the  songs  were  set  forth  was  singing  and 

music;  a  form  which  was  also  in  part  regarded  as  a  gift  of  ^{"god.^^ 

God,  but  which  for  us  is  entirely  lost.     It  is  self-evident  that 

the  divine  suggestion  which  had  to  do  first  of  all  with  the  oral 

word,  and  only  in  a  derivative  way  with  the  writing,  came  by 

no  means  equally  to  all  the  discourses  and  to  every  writing. 

In  the  time  of  the  Exile,  and  in  the  succeeding  time,  Scrip-  P^J-^ation. 

ture,  as  Scripture,  received  a  greater  and  greater  importance ; 

since  the  restoration  of  the  theocracy  was  attended  by  a  greater 

legalky,  and  in  the  place  of  free,  inspired  prophecy,  by  little 

and  little,  biblical  learning  made  its  appearance.     There  can  j^'^^^^^^^^g^ 

be  no  doubt  but  that  this  increasing  exaltation  of  Scripture,  as 

such,  betokened,  not  the  flourishing  life,  but  rather  the  decay  - 

of  the  higher  spirit  in  the  nation. 

lO.   Scripture  Idolization  and  the  Theocracy, 
But  for  precisely  the  maintenance  of  the  theocracy  this  idol- 
izing of  Scripture  was  of  incalculable  importance.     Upon  the 
productive  time  followed,  as  ever,  a  conservative.     Yet  where,  Conserva- 

^  ,     .  -,      ,        tive  time, 

in  a  time  given  to  scribbling,  were  to  be  the  limits  ;  and  what 

was  to  be  the  criterion  for  the  inviolability  of  these  limits  ? 
Already  the  author  of  the  Koheleth  laments  that  of  making 
many  books  there  is  no  end  (Eccl.  xii.  12).  It  would  doubt- 
less be  a  false  presupposition  if  we  should  assume  that  they 
were  immediately  clearly  conscious  of  such  a  criterion,  and  that 
an  accurate  separation  was  instituted  from  the  be^innin^.  The  The  Canon 
prologue  of  "  The  Son  of  Sirach  "  shows  us  clearly  enough  the  inite. 
indefiniteness  of  these  limits.  As  is  well  known,  the  Alexan- 
drine Jews  had  a  more  extensive  collection  than  the  Palestinian. 
It  is  worth  while  to  inquire  which  books  the  New  Testament 
authors  quote,  and  which  not ;  which  they  quote  frequently, 
and  which  only  seldom.  The  standard  designation,  as  is  well 
known,  for  the  collection  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  the  expression,  6  v6ixo<;  /cat  ol  irpocfiyJTaL,  or  6  v6fMo<;,  oi  Trpo- 
dirtTai,  KOL  ol  il/dXixoi.    The  various  values  which,  at  the  time  of  Estimatp  of 

•ii-T-iiiii-  Jpsus  and 

Jesus  and  the  Apostles,  were  ascribed  to  mdiviaual  books  ol  the  apostles 
the  Old  Testament,  is  shown  from  the  circumstance  that  the 


16  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 

Pentateuch,  Isaiah,  and  the  Psalms  are  cited  most  frequently 

of  all ;  certain  canonical  books,  as  Proverbs  and  Job,  relatively 

seldom  ;  the  Song  of  Solomon,  the  Book  of  Esther,  and  the 

Chronicles  very  seldom  ;  the  Books  of  Kings,  on  the  other  hand, 

are  cited  pretty  frequently,  the  Books  of  Ezra,  Tsehemiah,  and 

,■^,11"^*°".  t*^  Ecclesiastes  not  at  all.     On  the  other  hand,  allusion  is  made 

books.  i^gj,g  jjjjfl  there,  though  very  seldom,  to  uncanonical  books,  as 

the    Book  of   Tobias,  2  Maccabees,  and  perhaps  also  to  the 

Book  of  Wisdom.     The  Epistle  of  Jude,  indeed,  refers  even 

to  the  pseud epigraphic  book,  Enoch.    All  this  is  clear  j^roof 

that  the  limits   between    sacred  books   and  those  not  sacred 

Josepiuis's   was  not  yet  so  firmly  established  as  later.     Josephus,  in  the 

enumera-  /        »     .  -r     r^v 

tion.  well-Known  passage  (c.  Apion.  I.  8),  enumerates  twenty-two 

sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews,  and  then  adds  that  since  the 
time  of  Artaxerxes  books  have  been  written  on  all  hands,  but 
ha^e  not  been  considered  trustworthy,  Slo.  to  {jlyj  yevia-Oat  ryjv 

A  temporal  rwv  Trpo^TyrcLv  aKpiprj  ^la^oyrjv.  This  temporal  limit,  viz.  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  agrees  not  ill  with  that  where 
the  expiration  of  prophecy  is  usually  assumed ;  but  the  ground 
which  Josephus  adduces  for    the  meaner   authority  of   these 

Tradition,  later  writings  is  put  not  in  inspiration,  but  in  tradition.  On 
the  details,  as  well  as  on  the  history  of  the  text,  the  Introduc- 
tions to  the  Old  Testament  are  to  be  compared  [De  Wette, 
Bleek,  Keil,  Davidson]. 

II.   The  New  Testament  and  Revelation. 

Now  with  regard  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  these 

likewise  presuppose  a  revelation.     This  revelation  is  the  mani- 

The  God-     festation  of  the  God-man,  i.e.  of  a  man  who  is  not  separated 
man.  .  /  ^ 

from  God,  but  united  with  God,  and  who  has  opened  uj)  the 

possibility  and  the  actuality   of    a  union  of    man  with    God. 

The  relation  of  man  to  God  is  to  be  no  mere  judicial  relation  ; 

it  is  to  be,  and  may  be,  a  relation  of  love.     And  because  man 

is  destined  to  become  united  with  God  and  a  child  of  God,  a 

Rpsppct  for  respect  for  man,  an  estimation  of  man,  is  also  here  disclosed, 

as  in  no  other  religion  and  in  no  ancient  philosophy.     In  one 

word  —  over  against  the  Old  Testament  servant  of  God  —  the 


RIGHT  VIEW   OF  SCRIPTURE.  17 

son  of  God  is  here  revealed.     Over  against  the  inseparable 
unity  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  Israelitish  people,  of  the 
blessing  of  God  and  earthly  prosperity,  a  kingdom  of  God  is  f^^^^^f^l"^^ 
revealed  which  is  just  for  the  poor  and  the  oppressed ;  a  king- 
dom of  God  independent  of  worldly  power  and  earthly  pros- 
perity ;  a  kingdom  of  God  in  which  the  contradiction  between 
merit  and  fate  reaches  its  culmination,  but  is  precisely  through 
this  means  overcome.     And  not  only  were  Christ's  life,  words, 
and  acts  a  revelation,  but  also   his   death.     In    this,  to  the  ^^^If^^  j^. 
receptive  mind,  on  the  one  hand,  was  made  known  the  world's  J^"^^'^^^jJ^q 
guilt  and  enmity  to  God,  and  an  incentive  given  to  repentance 
which  no  doctrine  and  no  law  could  ever  have  given ;  on  the 
other  hand,  a  resignation  and  a  suffering  which,  by  the  faithful 
mind,  could  only  be  viewed  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  deepest 
Old  Testament  idea  (Isa.  liii.),  i.e.  as  a  suffering  and  dying 
for  us.     Nay,  as  from  this  death  went  forth  a  life,  from  this  ^^^;j^^^\' 
fall  a  new  power,  a  genuine  victory,  so  to  the  enlightened  eye,    * 
not  only  his  own  destination  to  resurrection  and  to  life  was 
revealed,  but  also  the  mystery  of  the  world  became  clear,  that 
truth  in  general  appears  in  the  form  of  a  servant ^  and  that  it 
must  mount  to  life  and  to  victory  through  suffering  and  humilia- 
tion.    Such  ideas  as  "never  have  entered  into  the  heart  of 
man"  are  manifest  in  Christ  and  through  Christ,  and  have 
become  the  impulse  to  a  new  moving  of  spirits,  to  a  new  civ-  Love, 
ilization,  whose  principle  is  love  (2  Cor.  v.  17). 

12.   Mediateness  of  New  Testament  Revelation. 
Upon  this  revelation  rest  the  writings  of  tlie  New  Testament, 
yet  by  no  means  immediately.     Still  less  than  to  the  essence 
of  the  Old  Testament  revelation  does  it  belong  to  the  essence 
of  the  New  Testament  revelation   that  it  be  written.     It  is  Writing 

^      .         ,  .         ,«  .  ,  nefflfcted 

sionificant    already   that    Christ    himself    neither   wrote   nor  by^christ; 
directed  others  to  write.     Nay,  so  definitely  is  his  image  im- 
pressed upon  our  souls  that  we  can  scarcely  think  of  him  as 

writincr.     Even  by  his  immediate  disciples,  even  by  his  earliest  ^yMs 

o  ./  ^  disciples, 

church,  writing  was  neglected  ^  precisely  because  to  them  his 

1  This  is  perhaps  a  groundless  assumption^  and  is  at  variance  with  the 
2* 


18  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

words  and  deeds,  because  to  them  his  life  and  death,  were  so 
freshly  and  vividly  in  remembrance.     The  motive  which  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant  had  to  record  their  prophecies 
and  to  seal  them  as  a  witness  for  future    generations,  must 
moreover  have  failed  them,  believing,  as  they  did,  that  they 
Idea  of  the  were  living  in  the  last  time,  and  expecting  the  Parousia  soon 
to  arrive.     When,  indeed,  the  Apostles  went  forth  to  proclaim 
abroad  the  gospel  of  Christ,  oral  K-^pvyfxa  was  the  medium  of 
their  missionary  activity ;  oral  preaching  it  was  through  which 
Christian  churches  were  established.     Nothins:  is  more  certain 
TheEpisties  than  that  the  Apostolic  Epistles  were  written,  not  in  order  to 
tory.  found  churches,  but  to  confirm  them  in  Christian  faith  and  life, 

as  the  -writers  often  refer  in  their  Epistles  to  personal  and  oral 
activity  among  the  readers  (cf.  1  Thess.  ii.  1-12  \  2  Thess.  iii. 
10;  Gal.  iv.  13-15;  1  Cor.  ii.  1-5;  iii.  1  sqq.).  Not  until 
the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  had  founded  churches  in  various 
and  remote  regions  did  the  need  arise  of  letters  of  exhortation 
for  the  confirming  of  the  churches  in  the  faith.  But  important 
as  these  Epistles  must  have  been,  alike  for  the  Apostle  himself 
and  for  his  readers,  Paul  was  convinced,  nevertheless,  that  the 
New  Covenant  and  the  ofRce  in  the  gospel  are  not  a  covenant 
Theiotter  and  office  of  the  letter,  but  of  the  spirit  (2  Cor.  iii.  6  sqq.).  If 
spirit.''^  "we  view  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostle  from  the  stand-point  of 
their  time,  as  we  should,  we  shall  find  in  them,  side  by  side 
with  many  great,  profound,  and  imperishable  thoughts,  some 
Eabbinical  which  are  due  simply  to  his  Rabbinical  culture.  We  reckon 
among  these  principally  the  now  literal,  now  allegorizing,  ex- 
Fallibility,  planation  of  Old  Testament  passages.  We  find  that  he  by  no 
means  claims  for  himself  infallibility,  but  distinguishes  between 
his  own  opinion  in  certain  things  and  the  word  of  the  Lord 
(1  Cor.  vii.  25,  40)  ;  ^  that  he  now  and  then  lost  his  temper  ; 
that  a  lapsus  memoriae  could  befall  him  (1  Cor.  i.  14-1 G)  ; 

best  results  of  modern  science.   Cf.  Dissertations  in  Goflet's  Commentaries 
on  Luke  and  John;  per  contra,  Wefitcott,  Intr.  Ch.  iii.  sub  lin.  —  Tu. 

1  The  fact  that  the  Apostle  thus  distinguishes  on  one  or  two  occasirms 
has  been  resrardcd  as  an  implied  claim  of  infallibility  for  the  rest  of  his 
writings.    Cf.  Stanley,  Commentary  in  loco.  —  Te. 


EIGHT  VIEW  OF  SCRIPTURE.  19 

that  dotymatic  correctness  in  the  later  ecclesiastical  sense  is  not 
to  be  thought  of  in  him  (cf.  1  Cor  iii.  23  ;  viii.  5  ;  xi.  3).  As 
regards  the  form,  we  feel,  of  course,  the  overpowering  torrent 
of  his  discourse  and  the  power  of  his  inspiration ;  but  we  cannot 
close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  many  Hebraistic  expressions 
and  turns  occur,  many  defective  propositions,  and,  in  general, 
that  his  Greek  is  very  far  from  classic  purity.  If  these  ^^[^^^^j^J^ 
ApostoHc  letters  of  exhortation  ministered  immediately  to  the  language, 
need  of  the  churches,  and  arose  directly  from  the  relation  of 
the  Apostle  to  them,  the  Gospels,  which  certainly  arose  some-  TheGospels. 
what  later,  ministered  to  a  mediate  and  a  more  far-seeing  need. 
Gradually  were  the  immediate  witnesses  passing  from  the 
stage,  and  with  them  the  immediate  and  faithful  remembrance 
of  the  words,  deeds,  and  fate  of  the  Lord  threatened  to  be 
extinguished.  Then  there  appeared  a  gospel  literature,  in  part, 
as  it  seems,  by  uncalled  men  ;  and  from  this  gospel  literature 
arose,  first,  a  Gospel  which  sprung  from  the  Xoyta  of  Matthew ; 
next,  one  which  seems  to  have  arisen  under  the  authority  of 
Peter ;  finally,  one  which  was  designed  for  a  Christian  of  note 
in  Italy  and  which  sought  to  combine  Pauline  views  with  the 
greatest  possible  completeness.  At  a  later  period,  in  the  out- 
side limits  of  the  Apostolic  age,  arose  a  fourth  Gospel  which 
takes  a  higher  stand-point  above  Judaism  and  Paulinism,  and 
aims  to  raise  tti'o-tis  to  -yv^crts.^  These  Gospels  afford  irrefragable  P\^|^|Jfo^^ 
proof  that  at  the  time  of  their  writing,  differences  in  the  his- 
torical tradition  had  already  arisen,  and  that  the  different  views 
and  reflections  of  the  Evangelists  had  likewise  an  influence  on 
the  representation.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  the  fourth 
Gospel.  Yet  even  earlier  pressing  conflicts  of  the  Christian 
churches  with  the  heathen  peoples,  yes,  even  with  the  heathen 
magistrates,  had  set  in ;  Christians  passed  here  and  there  as  a  J^^j'Jjj"^ 
despised  sect ;  the  Apostles  must  exhort  them  to  patience  Jjfgjf'''^ 
(cf.  Jas.  and  1  Pet.).  But  the  cruel  Neronian  persecution 
had  also   broken    out,  which   appeared  to  the  faithful  to  be 

1  On  this  whole  subject  of  the  rise  of  the  Gospels,  see  the  dissertations 
in  Godet's  excellent  commentaries  on  Luke  and  on  John.  —  Tb. 


20  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

the  bednninsT  of  a  decisive  battle  between  God  and  the  world, 
between  Christ  and  the  adversary ;  in  this  agitation,  moreover, 
something  of  the  old  prophetic  spirit,  nourished  chiefly  by 
images  from  Daniel,  beamed  forth  anew.  Thus  arose  the 
Apocalypse.  Johannean  Apocalypse,  as  encouragement  in  calamities,  as  ex- 
hortation to  steadfastness  in  the  expectation  of  the  early  coming 
of  the  Lord.  No  New  Testament  author,  as  the  Apocalyptic^ 
has  added  to  his  book  the  threat,  "If  any  man  shall  add  unto 
these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that  are 
written  in  this  book ;  and  if  any  man  shall  take  away  from  the 
words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take  away  his 
part  out  of  the  tree  of  life,"  —  a  threat  which  was  a  stumbling- 
block  to  Luther,  and  which  can  be  explained  only  from  the 
excited  tone  of  this  book. 

13.   Uncanonical  Christian  Writings. 
The  first    Christian    century   witnessed   the   rise  of   many 
writings :  gospels,  pre-eminently  apocalypses,  but  also  histories 
of  apostles  and   epistles  or  tractates,  mostly  pseudepigrajDhs, 
Marcion's     that  gained  acceptance  only  in  single  heretical  parties.     By 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  Marcion  had  a  canonical  col- 
lection, consisting  of  one  Gospel  and  ten  Pauline  Epistles,  and, 
by  about  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  most  of  the  writings  which  we  possess  in  our  New 
N.T.  Canon.  Testament  Canon  had  already  attained  to  a  canonical  authority 
•    (cf.  Fragm.  Muratori,  Peschito,  Citations  in  Iranaeus).     Only 
with  reference  to  the  Epistle  of  James,  the  second  Epistle  of 
Peter,  the  two   small    Epistles   of   John,  the    Epistle  to  the 
Doubtful      Hebrews,  and   the  Apocalypse  did  doubt  still   exist,  and  so, 
^^"^^'         indeed,  that  in  the  Eastern  church  the  Apocalypse,  and  in  the 
Western  the  Epistle  to  the  -Hebrews^  were  especially  disputed. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  the  first  centuries  there  was  a  disposition 
here  and  there  to  adjudge  canonical  authority  to  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,     Barnabas  and  to  the  first  Epistle  of  Clement  as  also  to  the 
andUtter-     Shepherd  of  Hermas.     (The  first  and  a  fragment  of  the  second 
°^*  Epistle  of  Clement  are  appended  to  the  Cod.  Alexandr.,  the  Ep. 

of  Barnabas  and  the  Pastor  Ilerm.  to  the  Cod.  Sinait.    Origan 


EIGHT  VIEW  OP  SCRIPTURE.  21 

mentions  the  latter  book  with  great  respect.     Tertullian,  per 

contra).     The  doubts  with  reference  to  second  Peter,  second 

and  third  John,  Hebrews,  and  the  Apocalypse  continued  into 

the  fourth  century  ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  "  Shepherd "  and 

the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  are  already  regarded  as  voOol  (Euse- 

bius,  H.  E.  III.  25).     From  these  facts  it  is  manifest  that  a 

long  time  passed  before  the  limits  between  sacred  books  and 

those  not  sacred  was  established.     But  what  now  were  the  Criteria  of 

criteria  according  to  which  some  books  were  recognized  as 

sacred  and  others  not  ?     In  the  case  of  second  Peter  it  was, 

without  doubt,  because  its  genuineness  was  doubtful ;  in  the 

case  of  second  and  third  John  it  was  the  smallness  of  their 

compass  and  the  unimportance  of  their  contents.     It  is  more 

difficult  to  see  why  the  Western   church  struggled  so  much 

against  the  recognition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.    It  could 

not  have  been  the  contents,  at  least  not  the  passage  that  has  been 

appealed  to,  vi.  4-6,  since  neither  Tertullian  nor  Novatian,  who 

yet  had  abundant  cause  to  appeal  to  this  passage,  makes  any  use 

of  it.  It  may  therefore  have  been  affected  rather  by  the  fact  that 

the  Epistle  was  not  regarded  as  a  work  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  to 

which,  perhaps,  the  observation  of  Origen  (in  Eusebius,  H.  E. 

VI.  25)   contributed  somethinoj.     Genuineness  and  canonicity  Gpnuine- 

y  o  -/    jjggg  and 

do  not  seem  to  have  been  discriminated.     The  case  was  dif-  canonicity. 
ferent  with  the  Apocalypse,  since   this    enjoyed  the    earliest 
recognition  ;  Justin  Martyr  quotes  it ;  Irenaeus  makes  distin- 
guished mention  of  it,  and  Origen  speaks  of  it  as  a  holy  book. 
First,  in  consequence  of  the  Chiliastic  agitation  (Nepos),  the 

Eastern  church  became  estransjed  from  the  book.     Here,  there-  internal 
/.  .  ^  IT  ,.1111  character, 

fore,  it  was  the  contents  and  character  of  the  book  that  occa- 
sioned the  aversion  of  the  Orientals  towards  it.  If  some 
hesitated  to  admit  the  Pastoral  Epistles  and  the  Epistle  to 
Philemon  into  the  Canon,  it  was  for  the  reason  that  they  are 
private  Epistles.  This  ground  was  urged  especially  against 
the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  and  was  accompanied,  indeed,  by  the 
observation :  non  semper  Apostolum  omnia  Christo  in  se  loquente 
dixisse.     (See  Jerome,  Comment,  in   Ep.  ad   Philemon,  in 


22 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   EERMENEUTICS. 


Gospel  of 
Johu. 


Apostoli- 
city  and 
conjrenial 
contents. 


Ecclpsiasti- 
cal  conser- 
vatism. 


praef.)  In  order  to  attain  to  as  complete  a  view  as  possible 
of  the  grounds  of  the  acceptance  or  the  non-acceptance  of 
certain  books,  still  another  book  must  be  considered,  which  was 
never  objected  to  by  the  ancient  church,  the  Gospel  of  John. 
It  is  well  known  how  sharp-sighted  the  ancient  church  was  for 
everything  heretical,  and  how  mistrustful  of  everything  that 
seemed  to  lend  a  support  in  any  way  to  the  heretics ;  but 
the  Johannic  Gospel  found  acceptance  and  authority  first  among 
the  followers  of  the  Valentinian  Gnosticism,  the  Yalentinian 
Heracleon,  indeed,  having  written  a  commentary  on  the  book 
(of.  Grig.  Tom.  in  Joh.  opp.  IV.  220,  234) ;  nevertheless,  from 
the  close  of  the  second  century  onwards  this  Gospel  had  author- 
ity in  the  church  as  a  genuine  and  canonical  book.  What  was 
it,  now,  that  overcame  the  scruples  that  might  have  been  enter- 
tained against  this  writing  on  account  of  its  Gnostic  contents 
and  use  ?  Was  it  the  conviction  of  the  Apostolic  authorship 
of  this  writing?  Was  it  the  lofty  and,  to  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness, so  congenial  contents?  Probably  both  together.  So 
much  we  gather  from  it  all,  that  the  judgment  of  the  ancient 
church  on  the  canonicity  and  the  non-canonicity  of  individual 
books  rested  not  on  strict  critical  princij^les,  but  on  a  general, 
and  for  the  most  part  tolerably  correct,  feeling.  But  what,  now, 
were  the  grounds  on  which,  in  the  fourth  century,  second  Peter, 
second  and  third  John,  and  Jude,  furthermore  the  so-called 
Pastoral  Epistles,  together  with  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  a  writing  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and, 
finally,  the  Apocalypse,  were  altogether  pronounced  to  be  can- 
onical writings  ?  Was  it,  indeed,  discovered  after  the  time  of 
Eusebius  that  second  Peter  is  genuine ;  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  everything  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  is  a 
work  of  the  Apostle  Paul ;  that  the  Apocalypse,  although  Chili- 
astic,  has  a  right  to  a  place  in  the  sacred  collection  ?  By  no 
means  ;  but  it  was  the  ecclesiastical  conservatism,  combined  with 
the  need  of  a  many-sided  ecclesiastical  constitution,  that  pro- 
cured for  these  writings  acceptance  into  the  canon.  (Cf.  Cyrill. 
Hierosol.  ttc^i  twi/  Oduiv  ypatjioiv,  Athau.  Ep.  fest.  365.  —  Can. 


EIGHT  VIEW  OF  SCRIPTURE.  23 

60  of  the  Council  of  Laodicaea,  Can.  36  of  the  Council  of 
Hippo,  etc.)  With  the  canonicity  ascribed  to  the  sacred  books 
was  naturally  joined  their  inspiration  (of.  e.g.  Cyrill.  Hierosol., 
as  above :  €K  Trvev/xaro?  dytov  y]  tojv  ayLiO  TrvevjxaTL  XaX-quu^ 
a-Cjv  O^Lwv  'ypa(f>u)V  ip/xyjveia  (rwcTcXetTo) .  Yet,  at  first,  inspira- 
tion was  ascribed  only  to  the  Old  Testament  writings;  not 
until  a  later  period,  especially  after  the  uniting  of  the  New 
Testament  into  a  sacred  collection,  was  inspiration  likewise 
extended  to  it. 

14.   Corruptions  of  the  Text. 

A  proof  how  little  the  Apostles  dreamed  that  their  writings, 
after  centuries,  would  be  honored  as  sacred  books,  is  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  autographs  of  the  New  Testament  authors  Autographs 
were  lost  so  early  that  even  the  most  ancient  Fathers  betray 
no  knowledge  of  them ;  whether  it  be  that  they  were  written 
on  very  perishable  material,  or  that  the  first  Christian  genera- 
tions attached  no  special  value  to  them.  Not  the  form,  the 
original,  but  the  contents  was  to  them  the  important  thing.  . 
But  if  only  they,  or  yet  the  oldest  transcripts,  had  been  so 
written  as  to  have  left  no  room  for  misunderstanding !  But, 
as  is  well  known,  the  ancients  wrote  in  the  scriptio  continua,  Scriptio 
and  —  although  in  the  •  schools  of  the  grammarians  the  marks 
of  punctuation  were  known  —  without  punctuation,  without 
breathings,  and  without  iota  subscript,  which  latter,  indeed,  was 
not  in  general  applied  in  the  Uncial  writing.  Hence  many 
uncertainties  and  differences  among  the  old  Fathers  as  to  how 
a  sentence  should  be  read  and  how  it  should  be  connected.  (Cf. 
e.g.  John  i.  3,  9 ;  Romans  vii.  11  ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  33.)  If,  then, 
in  the  fifth  century  stichometry  was  introduced  by  Euthalius  Stichome- 
of  Alexandria,  if  later  the  stichoi  were  separated  by  points, 
this  can,  of  course,  prove  nothing  as  to  the  divisions  which  the 
New  Testament  authors  themselves  had  in  mind.  The  same 
holds  true  with  reference  to  the  greater  divisions  (/ce^aXatc), 
which  ajipeared  as  early  as  the  second  century,  and  of  which 
Matthew  contains  355,  Mark  234,  Luke  342,  and  John  231. 
At  all  events  our  present  system  of  inter-punction  is  of  very 


24     "        GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

and  v^erses  ^^^®  Origin,  and  dates  from  the  sixteenth  century  ;  our  division 
into  chapters  proceeds  from  Cardinal  Hugo  of  St.  Caro  (f  1263), 
and  our  present  division  into  verses,  from  Rob.  Stephanus 
(1551).  But  not  only  in  the  external  form  did  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament  afford  many  an  uncertainty,  but  also  in 
its  inner  nature.  That  in  the  process  of  copying,  mistakes 
could  slip  in,  is  self-evident  to  every  unprejudiced  mind.  But 
not  only  accidental,  but  also  deliberate,  alterations  of  the  text 
came  in  —  most  frequently  and  most  freely  of  all  in  the  first 
centuries,  when  men  did  not  dream  that  with  the  sacred  text 

Classes  of    every  word  is   of   importance.     What  was  offensive  or  coh- 

corruptions.  *'  ,      ^ 

tradictory  was  obviated ;  faults  of  language  were  corrected ; 
expressions  and  thoughts  that  seemed  not  sufficiently  favorable 
to  orthodoxy  were  made  more  so ;  in  a  liturgical  interest,  e.g. 
doxologies  were  added ;  from  tradition,  still  vivid,  additions 
were  made,  as  John  vii.  53-Yiii.  11 ;  v.  4;  Mark  xvi.  9  to  the 
end ;  so  also  in  the  interest  of  orthodoxy  passages  like  1  John 
V.  7,  were  interpolated.  Such  additions  were  at  first  merely 
written  in  the  margin,  and  not  until  a  later  period  were  they 
incorporated  into  tiie  text  itself.  If  we  consider  all  the  cir- 
cumstances through  which  the  biblical  text  suffered  alteration, 
Uncertainty  jt  mig^ht  well  seem  as  if  we  were  left  in  total  uncertainty  as  to 

as  to  the  *  '' 

original.  the  Original,  and  as  if  we  must  renounce  any  possibility  of 
arriving  at  the  bottom  of  the  matter,  especially  when  we  remem- 
ber that  even  in  Griesbach's  time  thirty  thousand  variations  had 
already  been  counted.  The  orthodoxy  of  the  seventeenth 
century  contented  itself  with  denying  the  facts  of  the  case; 
maintaining  that  the  divine  Providence  could  not  have  per- 
mitted the  word  of  God  to  be  changed  or  adulterated.  Such 
an  assertion  has,  at  the  present  day,  when  the  weight  of  un- 
deniable facts  speaks  out,  become  an  impossibility ;  and  ortho- 
doxy, to  be  consistent,  must  turn  around  and  say :  the  divine 
Providence  not  having  attended  to  the  unadulterated  preserva- 
tion of  the  biblical  text,  has  shown  that  it  did  not  intend  to 
bind  the  saving  truth  in  the  biblical  letters.  Notwithstanding 
this,  it  must  still  be  very  important  for  us,  in  the  theological 


RIGHT  VIEW  OP  SCRIPTUEE.  25 

interest,  to  press  through  this  forest  of  variations,  and  to  ascer- 
tain the  original  condition  of  the  text  with  the  greatest  possible 
probability.  But  this  is  not  impossible;  and  to  this  textual 
criticism,  praciised  according  to  correct  principles,  leads. 

15.   Results  for  a  Conception  of  Scripture. 

But  what  results  from  what  has  been  said  for  a  conception 
of  Scripture^  as  a  foundation  for  a  sound  and  thorough  ex- 
egesis ?         1 )  The  Scriptures  proceed  from  a  previous  reve-  l>ependenoe 

o  /  1  i  r  on  revela- 

lation.     By  revelation  we  understand  not  only  such  truths  as  tion. 

the  receiver,  correctly  or  incorrectly,  regards  as  supernatural ; 
but  rather  partly  such  thoughts  as  in  the  life  of  the  individual 
or  of  the  people  are  ideal  new  creations,  and  partly  such 
events  as,  full  of  ideal  worth,  produce  an  enlightening  and 
inspiring  effect ;  in  one  word,  ideas  that  are  facts  —  facts  that 
are  ideas.  Of  such  is  the  Bible  composed,  therefore  it  is  the 
holy  Scripture,  the  book  of  books.  The  difference  between 
the  writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  and  other  books 
is  not  only,  and  not  chiefly,  that  the  spirit  of  the  former  is 
related  to  the  spirit  of  the  latter  as  the  general  to  the  spe- 
cial ;  still  less  as  the  educated  spirit  to  the  uneducated,  but  as 
the  new  man  to  the  old ;  as  one  that  gives  all  honor  to  God, 
that  seeks  and  finds  perfect  satisfaction  in  communion  with  . 
God  alone.  2)  Yet  we  are  to  distinguish,  indeed,  between  Revelation 
revelation  and  the  record  of  revelation,  or  holy  Scripture.  In  record  of 
revelation  man  sustains  always  a  receptive  relation  —  hearing 
(1  Sam.  iii.  10),  or  beholding  (Isa.  vi.  1  sqq.).  In  the  com- 
munication (oral  or  written),  he  sustains  an  active  relation. 
The  more  immediately  the  revelation  has  promulgation  in  view 
(as  Num.  xxiii.  12-xxiv.  4  ;  Amos  iii.  7,  8  ;  Acts  iv.  20  ;  2  Cor. 
iv.  6),  the  more  the  word  of  promulgation  is  itself  a  revelation. 
But  this  is  not  always  the  case  as,  e.g.  in  the  writing  of  history, 
where  the  revelation  has  passed  through  tradition,  and  the 
author  relates  what  has  been  handed  down  ;  or  in  reflection, 
when  the  revelation  is  mediated  through  the  national  and  tem- 
poral  view  and  through  the  individual  thinking.  This  accom-  Accommo- 
modation  is  found  far  more  in  written  than  in  oral  discourse.    In 


26  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OP  HERMENEUTICS. 

the  Scriptures  are  found  all  shades,  from  the  most  immediate 

effusion  to  the  most  mediate  tradition  and  human  reflection. 

Author  not  3)  The  biblical  author,  as  the  organ  of  revelation,  is,  therefore, 
a  mere  or-  .  ,  .  .  .       .  ,   .     i  • 

gan.  never  merely  and  purely  an  organ ;  but  as  he  is  rooted  in  his 

national  and  temporal  views  and  interests,  so  also  he  is  con- 
cerned, both  actively  and  passively,  in  his  common  and  individual 
interests ;  but  vrhile,  without  being  entirely  destitute  of  the 
revealing  Spirit,  so  much  human  limitation  and  impurity  niay 
adhere  to  the  author,  yet  he  stands  always  passively  or  actively, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  under  the  influence  of  this  Spirit. 
That  divine  and  eternal,  and  this  human  and  temporal,  are  so 
blended  in  Scripture  that  the  divine  receives  through  the 
human  its  coloring  and  bodily  form,  the  human  through  the 
divine,  its  sanction.  Thus,  then,  the  discrimination  between 
Scriptura  sacra  and  Verbum  Dei  is  just  as  proj^er  as  the  sep- 

Relation  of  aration  of  the  two  is  inadmissible.         a)  The  relation  of  the 

the  Kew  ,  ^ 

Test,  to  the  2^ew  Testament  to  the  Old  is  in  part  a  relation  of  unity, 'in 

Old  Test.  ^        .  ■^.  .  rr.,  .  .  \        ' 

part  a  relation  of  diversity.  Tlie  unity  consists  not  only  m 
the  idea  of  the  one  almighty  and  holy  God,  but  also  in  the 
idea  (more  limited  or  more  spiritural)  of  a  people  of  God  as 
the  object  of  his  revelations  and  guidance,  as  also  of  the  mutual 
relation  of  promise  and  fulfilment.  The  difference  consists 
partly  in  the  spiritualizing  of  the  divine  law  into  love,  and  in 
the  realization  of  love  to  God  in  love  to  man ;  partly  in  the 
discrimination  and  the  separation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  from 
worldly  powers  and  conditions,  and  in  the  elevation  of  mar- 
tyrdom to  the  highest  dignity  ;  but,  in  general,  in  the  revelation 
of  the  relation  of  sonship,  first  of  all  in  the  person  of  Jesus, 
but  then*  also  in  the  faithful.  In  some  New  Testament  writings 
the  unity  with  the  Old  Testament,  in  others  the  difference 
Individual-  from  it,  is  made  more  prominent.         b)  But  besides  this  the 

the  New      Spirit  of  the  New  Testament  becomes  individualized  to  such 
Test 

au  extent,  that  not  only  do  Paul  and  James,  but  also  John  and 

.Peter,  differ  among  themselves,  but  also  from  both  the  others, 

and  even  in  Paulinism  unmistakable  shades  of  opinion  occur. 

Even   between   earlier   and  later   Epistles    the   difference   is 


RIGHT   VIEW   OF  SCRIPTURE.  2T 

observable,  that  in  the  latter  the  progress  from  irtcrTi?  to  yvtuo-t?, 
from  the  simpler  to  the  more  elaborate  ecclesiastical  constitution, 
is  manifest.^  Hence  it  follows  that  the  spirit  of  the  New- 
Testament,  in  general  the  spirit  of  revelation,  is  not  a  statical, 
but  a  developinq  spirit.         c)  It  is,  furthermore,  undeniable  Mode o/ the 

r^  .  .  ,  rise  of  Isew 

tliat  the  jNew  Testament  writmgs  arose,  not  as  a  result  of  a  Tost,  writ- 
special  divine  commission,  but  as  they  were  called  forth  by  the 
conditions  and  needs  of  the  churches.  If  a  divine  commission 
is  here  to  be  spoken  of,  it  consists  in  the  apostolic  longing  for 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  cluirches ;  cf.  especially,  Rom.  i. 
9-12  ;  1  Cor.  i.  10  sqq  ;  xv.  1-3  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13  ;  vii.  5  sqq.; 
Gal.  i.  6,  7  ;  iv.  12  sqq. ;  John  xix.  35  ;  xx.  31  ;  1  John  i.  1-4 ; 
ii.  1,  26;    iv.  1;  v.  13.  d)    No    careful    reader    can    have 

failed  to  observe  that  the  authors  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  are  dependent,  at  least  partialh',  on  tradition, 
and  that  apostolic  men  often  in  their  letters  make  use  of  such 
Scriptural  arguments  for  the  confirmation  of  the  truth  as  from  New  Test, 

1  •  f      .  p  •         Ml  11       writers  de- 

the  ponit  of  view  of  an  accurate  exegesis  will  not  stand  the  pendent  on 

,  -  ,  .         ,  -  ,  -  tradition, 

test,   as  also   of   such    rational    grounds   as  would   now   seem 

scarcely  tenable  ;  so,  e.g.  Gal.  iii.  15  sqq. ;  iv.  21-31  ;  1  Cor. 
xi.  1-15  ;  XV.  29  sqq. ;  Rom.  iv.  20-25 ;  vii.  1-G,  and  other  . 
passages.  As  here  the  Apostle  is  frequently  dependent  on  liis 
rabbinical  education,  so,  not  seldom,  he  allows  himself  in  bursts 
of  indignation  ;  as,  especially,  in  Galatians  and  in  second  Corinth- 
ians. These  are  human  elements  which  mar,  indeed,  the  purity 
of  the  divine  truths,  but,  at  the  same  time,  show  us  by  so  much 
tlie  more  clearly  the  Apostle  in  his  historical  embodiment. 
c)  Although  the  New  Testament  authors  —  even  the  author 
of  the  Apocalypse  —  never  dreamed  that  they  were  writing 
holy  Scriptures  for  remote  centuries,  yet  their  writings  became 

such,  as  the  result  of    a  necessary  ecclesiastical  development.  Ecclesiasti- 
'  "^  .        ,  cal  develop- 

Not,  indeed,  that  no  Christian  church  could  have  maintained  ment. 

an  existence  without  a  firm  canon  of  sacred  writings ;  yet  the 

need  of  a  stable  authority,  which  the  church  connects  with  its 

1  This  difference  is  doubtless  attributable  in  part  to  different  dci^ees  of 
culture  on  the  part  of  the  readers.  (Cf.  Galatians  with  Ephesians.)— Tr. 


28  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

divine  origin,  was,  and  is,  the  consequence  of  ecclesiastical 
unification  and  fortification.  What  proceeded  from  the  fulness 
of   the  consciousness  of  the  revelation  of  salvation  in  Christ, 

Inequality  has,  for  all  times,  a  refreshing  and  sanctifying  power.  /)  As 
in  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  church  equal  value  was 
not  attached  to  all  the  New  Testament  writings,  so  it  must  be 
permitted  to  us  also  to  esteem  them  unequally.  Nay,  we  have 
a  right  to  go  beyond  the  judgment  of  the  ancient  church, 
knowing  as  we  do,  that  it  could  not  yet  have  proceeded  ac- 
cording to  firm  principles  and  deep  insight,  and  that  to  us,  who 
are  in  possession  of  these  requisites,  it  is  permitted  to  subject 
as  well  their  favorable  judgments  as  their  doubts  to  a  thorough 

Needoftex-  test.         a)    Still  more  pressinsf  must  we  regard  the  need  of 

tual  cnti-  ...  1  o  » 

cism.  textual  criticism  ;  for,  since  through  the.  corruptions  and  varia- 

tions of  the  text,  the  basis  from  which  the  exegetical  explana- 
tion has  to  proceed  is  made  uncertain,  textual  criticism  must 
form  the  foundation  of  interpretation.  Yet  here,  in  a  thousand 
cases,  only  a  probability,  not  a  certainty,  is  reached.  h) 
Through  all  the  human  elements  of  national  and  temporal  con- 
ceptions and  modes  of  thought,  through  the  undeniably  very 
different  value  and  merit  of  the  individual  parts  of  Scripture, 
through  the  unclassical  language,  and  through  all  the  uncer- 
tainties and  corruptions  of  the  text,  beams  clearly  and  unmis- 
Divine  con-  takably  the  unparalleled  and  divine  contents  of  the  New  Tes- 

tents.  "^  ♦         ^ 

tament.  Little  as  we  are  to  be  blind  to  these  things ;  much 
as  we  are  to  bestow  our  full  attention  on  these,  as  the  body  in 
which  this  divine  soul  dwells,  we  are  just  as  little  to  turn  away 
from  the  soul  of  this  body,  the  divine  contents,  because  it  is 
given  to  us  in  the  form  of  a  servant. 

3.    The  Interpretatiofv  of  Scriptuj'e,  and  of  the  J^ew 
Testament  in  particular. 

I6>    Impartiality  the  Result  of  Conflict. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  nature  of  Scripture,  and  of  the 
New  Testament  in  partic^ular,  may  be  regarded  as  a  sure  ac- 
quisition of  theology,  and  as  the  property  of  all  theologians  of 


HISTORY  OF  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  29 

the  present  But  this  acquisition  is  the  record  of  a  hard  two- 
hundred-years  battle ;  nay,  we  see  the  forerunners  of  it  even 
in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  Even  the  age  of  the  Refor- 
mation, for  reasons  easy  to  understand,  was  not  yet  able  to 
attain  to  complete  impartiality.  It  was  necessary  rather  that  f^Jf^g^^' 
there  should  be  first  a  one-sided  and  unnatural  deification  and 
ossification,  then  just  as  one-sided  and  shallow  a  humanization, 
and  finally  a  battle  between  the  two,  before  the  true  impartiality 
and  thoroughness  of  the  view  of  Scripture  could  be  wrought  out. 
All  these  various  conceptions  exercised  their  influence  on 
Scripture  interpretation,  and  are  reflected  therein.  It  is  there- 
fore instructive  to  recognize  in  the  history  of  Scripture  inter- 
pretation the  distortions  and  errors,  as  also  the  so  often  fruitless 
efforts  for  something  better ;  but,  especially,  the  battle  between 
the  sound  sense  and  a  consecrated  tradition,  or  "  orthodoxy," 
falsely  so  called,  and  from  the  long  course  of  error  to  extract 
the  truth.  This  seems  by  so  much  the  less  superfluous,  that  even 
at  the  present  day  the  sound  and  correct  view  is  not  altogether 
unattacked  and  free  from  detraction. 

a)  History  of  Scripture  Interpretation  in  connection  with 

the  present  idea  of  Scripture} 

17.   The  Allegorical  Interpretation. 

Interpretation  takes  its  rise  whenever  there  arises  an  opposi- 
tion that  needs  to  be  reconciled  between  the  spirit  of  Scripture 
and  the  spirit  of  the  time.  The  first  and  most  distinct  ap- 
pearance of  such  an  opposition  was  with  the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  fl^^^^^^^ 
of  whom  Philo  must  be  regarded  as  the  representative.  The 
unconditional  veneration  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  influence  of  the  Hellenistic  and  especially  of 
the  Platonic  culture  on  the  other,  could  not  but  bring  abont  a 
breach,  to  be  composed  only  through  the  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture.  The  naivete  with  which  the  Old  Testament 
speaks  of  God,  the  downright  realism  of  many  Old  Testament 
ideas  and  expressions,  stood  in  direct  antagonism  to  the  idealistic 

1  Cf.  Cell^ier,  pp.  7-30;  G,  W.  Meyer,  Gesch.  d.  Schrifterklarung.— Tr. 
S*  • 


BO  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OP  HERMENEUTICS. 

of ^?oi5    *^o^&^^  of  ^^®  current  culture.  The  allegorical  interpretation  oo- 
Test.  cupied  itself  with  the  idealizing  of  the  Old  Testament  expressions 

and  conceptions,  especially  with  the  removal  of  the  anthropomor- 
phic and  the  anthropopathic,  with  the  reduction  of  theophanies  and 
other  contacts  of  God  with  men  to  mediating  powers.  Although 
Philo  bowed  to  a  rigid  idea  of  inspiration,  and  although  he  did 
not  deny  the  historical  nature  of  the  Old  Testament  narratives 
and  persons,  these  are  yet  to  him  little  more  than  pictures  (rpoTroi) 
of  the  soul.  Adam  .becomes  with  him  the  uvOpo)7ro<:  yr/ycvi^?  or 
XOLKo^ ;  Cain  is  self-seeking ;  Abel,  devotion  to  God ;  Noah  is 
the  picture  of  righteousness  ;  Abraham  is  the  symbol  of  a  soul 
grown  wise  through  discipline  ;  Isaac  the  picture  of  a  soul  wise 
by  nature ;  Jacob  of  a  soul  grown  wise  through  practice ;  Moses, 
finally,  is  called  6  Xoyos  '7rpo<f>T^Trj<s.  Egypt,  according  to  Philo, 
is  the  emblem  of  the  body .;  Canaan  of  piety ;  the  wandering 
of  Abraham  from  Chaldaea  denotes  his  conversion  from  the 
worship  of  the  stars  to  God,  etc.  Yet  Philo  regards  the 
allegory  only  as  an  esoteric  doctrine,  which  is  not  for  carnal, 
but  for  spiritual  men.  But  the  allegorical  and  typical  treat- 
ment of  the  Old  Testament  was  also  in  vogue  among  the 
Palestinian  Palestinian  Jews,  here  less  in  the  interest  of  an  idealizing 
philosophy,  although  the  purism  of  the  idea  of  God  had  even 
here  dislodged  the  old  anthropomorphic  conceptions.  Side  by 
side  with  the  allegorical  and  typical  interpretation  a  literal 
interpretation  was  also  in  vogue  ;  a  pressing  of  single  sentences 
and  words  without  reference  to  the  original  sense  —  a  result  of 
the  legalistic  method  of  thought. 

18.   Allegorizing  of  the  New  Testament  Writers. 

It  was  this  method  also  that  the  New  Testament  writers, 
Panl's  alie-  especially  the  rabbinically  educated  Paul,  practised.  With 
them  allegorizing  and  typologizing  arose  not  from  the  need  of 
reconciling  the  sacred  word  with  the  philosophy  of  the  time, 
but  from  the  relation  of  the  former  to  Christ  and  to  Christian 
truth.  The  arguments  from  Scripture  which  they  frequently 
employ  along  with  rational  arguments  are,  in  part,  passages 
that  are  adduced  merely  with  reference  to  the  language,  and 


HISTORY  OP   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  31 

as  may  suit  the  writer's  convenience  from  the  most  various 

places  of   the  Old  Testament.     The  Anostle  Paul,  to  prove  Specimens 

'  ^  of  Paul's  al- 

that  the  true  sons  of  Abraham  are  not  slaves,  but  free  children  legorizing. 

of  God,  refers  the  two  wives  of  Abraham  to  the  old  and  new 

covenants  (Gal.  iv.  22  sqq.).     In  the  passage  of  the  Israelites 

through  the  Red  Sea  he  finds  an  allusion  to  Christian  baptism, 

and  in  the  eating  of  the  manna   an  allusion    to   the  Lord's 

Supper  (1  Cor.  x.  1-3).     The  rock  from  which  Moses  caused 

the  water  to  flow  is  to  him  a  picture  of  Christ  (1  Cor.  x.  4). 

The  collective  singular,  oTrcp/xa  (Gen.  xxii.  18),  Paul  presses 

to  prove  that  thereby  ^nly  the  one  Christ  can  be  meant  (Gal. 

iii.  16).^     The  deluge  from  which   the   sons  of   Noah  were 

saved  by  the  ark,  Peter  so  applies  as  to  make  the  water  of  the  f ^d^^^au- 

flood  a  symbol  of  baptism,  where  the  8ta,  through  a  play  upon  ^^^^^  ^^  ^«- 

the  word,  is  used  in  the  local  sense,  "  through,"  as  well  as  in 

the  instrumental  sense,  "by  means  of"  (1  Pet.  iii.  20).     The 

author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  make   much  use  of  the 

allegory  and  the  type,  in  which  respect  'the  Epistle  of  Barnabas 

goes,  to  be  sure,  still  farther. 

19.  The  Alexandrian  School. 

Accordingly,  when  Christianity  had  extended  itself  to  Alex- 
andria, and  had  established  there  a  catechetical  school,  the  need 
must  have  been  felt  in  a  high  degree  of  accommodating  Christi- 
anity and  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  still  ever  regarded  as 
the  source  of  knowledge  and  the  source  of  proof  for  Christianity,  Christianity 
with  the  culture  of  the  time,  especially  with  the  Platonic  nism. 
philosophy.  The  allegorical  interpretation  could  not  fail  to 
come  thus  into  great  prominence.  According  to  Clement  the 
verbal  sense  is  merely  for  elementary  faith,  the  allegorical 
sense  alone  leads  to  the  gnosis.  In  justification  of  the  employ- 
ment of  the  allegory,  the  propriety  of  which  seei^is  still  to  have 
been  questioned*  by  many,  he  appeals  to  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2  ;  1  Cor. 
ii.  6,  and  other  passages.  But  the  chief  allegorist  of  the 
Christian  church  is  Origen.  This  great  teacher  devoted  the  Origen. 
greater  part  of  his  life  to  the  critical  and  exegetical  study  of  the 
1  See  EUicott  and  Lightfoot,  Comm.,  in  loco.  —  Tb. 


32  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

Scriptures.  Of  bis  critical  labors  bis  works,  the  Hexapla  and 
the  Tetrapla  (portions  of  which,  to  be  sure,  are  lost),  furnish 
proof.  His  exegetical  works  were  of  three  kinds  :  scholia  (all 
lost),  conamentaries  proper  (ro/xot),  and  rcligio-ethical  homilies. 
Pre-eminent  among  his  commentaries  must  that  on  the  Gospel 
of  John  be  placed.  His  Christian  Platonism,  which  was 
arrayed  as  well  against  empty  Ebionism  as  against  unbelieving 
heathen  speculation,  is  everywhere  noticeable.  In  the  place 
of  the  view  previously  in  vogue,  of  a  twofold  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture, he  adopts,  after  the  manner  of  the  Platonic  trichotomy 
of  man  into  crcu/ta,  ij/vxrj,  and  \6yog  (TrycDfia),  a  threefold  sense 
of  Scripture.  The  literal  sense  he  did  not  despise,  but  re- 
garded it  as  merely  the  shell  of  the  higher  sense,  just  as  the 
earthly  nature  of  Christ  was  the  shell  of  his  divine  nature. 
It  was  partly  his  exaggerated  idea  of  inspiration,  partly  his 
Platonism,  that  led  him  often  into  phautastic,  over-refined  ex- 
planations. While  in  Origen  the  grammatico-critical,  as  well 
as  the  mystico-speculative,  tendency  was  represented,  the  later 
Later  Alex-  Alexandrian    school,    with    its   most   famous    representatives, 

andnan  ^  ^  ^  .  . 

School.  Athanasius  and  Cyril,  abandoning  the  former,  gave  itself,  in 
opposition  to  the  Antiocliian  exegesis  (see  below),  entirely  to 
the  allegorical.  The  chief  monument  of  this  one-sided  ten- 
dency are  the  Homilies  of  Cyril.  -Cyril  wrote  commentaries  on 
the  Pentateuch,  on  the  Prophets,  and  on  the  Gospel  of  John. 
He  may  be  regarded  as  the  representative  of  the  Scriptm-e  in- 
terpretation of  his  time  in  which  the  dogmatizing  was  joined 
with  the  allegorizing  tendency. 

20.  The  Antiochian  School. 

In  opposition  to  this  tendency  stood  the  exegesis  of  the 
Antiochian  school,  as  whose  first  representatives  Theophilus, 
Julius  Africanns,  and  Lucian  are  to  be  mentioned.  To  the 
mystico-idealistic  —  at  a  later  period  more  and  more  dogma- 
tizing-—  character  of  the  Alexandrian  school,  the  historico- 
TheAnti-     critical  chamcteT  of  the  Antiochian  school  formed  an  antago- 

ociiian  ^  •       i      r        t       •  j?    o 

sciiooi,  his-  iiism  as  sharp  as  can  be  conceived  of.     Lucian  of  bamosata 
cai.  (t  311)  was  the  founder  of  this  school  and  was   celebrated 


HISTORY  OP  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  33 

chiefly  for  his  contributions  to  the  critical  purging  of  the  bib- 
lical text.  But  the  Antiochians  who  exhibited  most  sharply 
the  peculiarity  of  this  school  in  exegesis  are  Diodorus  of  Tarsus 
(fc.  394),  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (f  c.  428).  The  former 
wrote  a  work  entitled  n's  Sta^opa  ^ewpi'a?  koL  aAAiTyoptag,  and 
many  commentaries,  in  great  part  lost.  The  latter  explained  his- 
torically most  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
had  no  sympathy  for  the  mystical  conception  of  the  Song  of 
Solomon.  In  general  they  did  not  condemn  all  allegory  with- 
out distinction,  but  only  the  manner  and  extent  of  its  employ- 
ment by  the  Alexandrians.  l3ut  the  barrenness  of  the  Anti-  J/^^^J°^^^ 
ochian  exegesis,  especially  as  it  was  practised  by  Theodore,  ochian-exe- 
dld  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  time.  His  writings  were 
condemned  to  the  flames  by  the  command  of  Theodosius  and 
of  Yalentinian  ;  yet  his  Commentary  on  the  Minor  Prophets 
was  preserved.  Theodore  was  very  highly  treasured  by  the 
Syrian  Nestorians,  and  was  called  the  c^ryyTJ-ny?  Kar  iioxriv. 
Yet  liis  method  was  not  retained  entirely  even  by  the  orthodox 
Antiochians  themselves,  and  Joh.  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret  Tho  labors 

'  ^  ,     ,        ot  thrysos- 

of  Cyrus,  justly  the  most  celebrated  interpreters  of  Christian  torn  and 
antiquity,  deviated  from  the  emptiness  of  their  teacher  in  as 
far  as  they  treated  the  Scriptures,  as  a  divine  book,  with  the 
greatest  reverence.  Yet  they  also  made  the  verbal  sense  their 
starting-point,  and  regarded  this  as  the  foundation  of  all  exe- 
gesis. Joh.  Chrysostom  (347-407)  is  the  author  of  about  six 
hundred  and  fifty  homilies,  in  which  the  grammatico-historical 
is  combined  with  practical  edificatory  explanation.  He  does 
not  reject  entirely  the  allegory  and  the  type.  He  distinguishes 
correctly  between  prophesying  and  prognostication.^  With 
reference  to  the  New  Testament,  his  explanations  of  the  Para- 
bles and  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  are  especially  prized.  The 
difference  between  TJieodore  and  Chrysostom  has  been  stated 
as  follows :  Theodore  interpreted  grammatically,  Chrysostom, 
theologically.  Like  Chrysostom,  Theodoret.  also  (f  c.  457)  made 
the  literal  sense  his  starting-point,  but  did  not  stop  there.  He 
1  Weissajjunj;  unci  Wahrsagung. 


34  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 

assumes  a  o-vyKaTa^acn<;  of  the  sacred  writers,  by  which,  for  ex- 
ample, the  anthropomorphisms  are  to  be  explained.  The  Mes- 
sianic application  of  prophecy  he  practises  within  bounds,  but 
combats  the  explanation  of  the  Song  of  Solomon  given  by  Theo- 
dore. In  the  explanation  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  he  follows 
Chrysostom  in  great  part,  but  still  works  with  a  great  deal  of 
independence.  After  the  decline  of  the  school  of  Antioch  the 
moderate  treatment  of  Scripture  flourished  at  Edessa  and  at 
Schools  of   Nisibis.     In  Edessa  it  was  Ephraem  the  Syrian   (t  c.  378) 

Edessa  and       ,        ,. ,  ,  .    .  .      ,  i  \-         i  • 

Nisibis.  who  did  most  towards  revivmg  exegetical  study  ;  yet  alter  his 
death  it  was  not  so  much  his  method  as  that  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  that  was  employed  by  his  followers,  Barsumas  and 
Ibas.  The  school  of  Nisibis  maintained  itself  longer  than  the 
school  of  Edessa,  even  until  some  time  in  the  ninth  century. 
The  earnestness  and  zeal  with  which  exegetical  studies  were 
there  pursued  are  attested  by  the  so-called  Canon  of  Nisibis, 
which  prescribed  a  three -years  bourse  of  Old  Testament  and 
New  Testament  study.  Ephraem  and  Theodore  passed  as 
models   of    exegesis.     Through    Chrysostom    the    Antiochian 

The  Byzan-  school  likewise  exercised  an  influence  on  the  Byzantine. 
'  Diodorus,  of  course,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Ibas  (con- 
demned in  the  Three  Chapter  Controversy,  553)  continued  to 
be  entirely  excluded.  As  in  New  Rome,  just  after  the  Coun- 
cils of  Chalcedon  and  Constantinople,  the  strictest  orthodoxy 
prevailed.  Scripture  interpretation  also  came  under  the  dom- 
ination of  this  orthodoxy.  Yet  so  great  was  the  authority 
and  the  influence  of  Chrysostom  that  even  in  the  tenth  and 
eleventh  centuries  worthy  followers  of  him  may  be  pointed  out. 
Oecumenius  of  Tricca  in  Thessaly  wrote  commentaries  on  the 
Pauline  and  the  Catholic  Epistles.     More  important  is  The- 

Theophy-  ophylact  (t  1107)  who,  in  his  explanation  of  the  Gospels  and 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  though  he  follows  Chrysostom  for 
the  most  part,  possesses  a  marked  degree  of  independence,  and 
gives  us  some  excellent  and  subtile  observations,  which  even  to 
the   present    time   are   employed   by    the    exegetes.     In    the 

Zigabenu3.    thirteenth  century  Euthymius  'Ligabenus  (Zigadenus)  is  worthy 


HISTORY   OP   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  35 

of  mention.  This  writer  performed  an  important  service  for 
exegesis  through  his  explanation  of  the  Gospels,  in  which  the 
connection  of  the  thought  especially  is  often  excellently 
brought  out. 

21.   Exegesis  in  the  Western  Church. 
The  Western  Church  stood  far  behind  the  Eastern  in  biblical 
study  and   exegesis.     The  principal   cause  of   this  difference 
was    ignorance  of  Greek  on  the  part  of   most  of  the  Latin  J^^J,\p^g 
Fathers.     For  the  Old  Testament  they  were  dependent  on  a  j?"°^"^  "^ 
Latin  version  of  the  LXX ;  for  the  New  Testament  they  were 
likewise  dependent  on  a  Latin  version.     Jerome  alone  (t  420)  Jerome, 
forms  here  an  exception.     He  was  familiar   not   only   with 
Greek  but  also  with  Hebrew.     His  merit  as  an  exegete  rests    . 
less  upon  his  investigation  of  the  sense  than  upon  a  multitude 
of  linguistic,  historical,  and  especially  archaeological,  notices. 
In  his  explanation  of  the  Old  Testament  he  is  too  dependent 
an  Jewish  tradition.     Jerome  was  not  a  deep  and  original,  but 
a  learned  and  many-sided  spirit.     His  principal  merit  consists 
in  his  translation  (Vulgate)  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
from  the  original  texts,^  and  in  his  discussion  of  the  difference 
between   the  Alexandrian   and    Palestinian  Canons   and   his 
decision  in  favor  of  the  latter.     Augustine  (t  430)  was  the  Augustine, 
counterpart  of  Jerome.     He  was  a  profoundly  religious  and 
speculative  spirit ;  and  sought  to  penetrate  to  the  very  depths 
of  Scripture  also.    But  he  lacked  not  only  a  knowledge  of  the 
original  lanmiasces  of  the  Bible,  but  also  historical  and  critical 
perception.     He  set  forth,  indeed,  many  good  hermtneutical 
principles,  as  e.g.  when  he  lays  stress  on  the  verbal  sense  ; 
when  he  demands  of  his  interpreter,  above  all  things,  love  for 
his  author ;  but  he  also  did  much  harm  by  laying  the  founda^ 
tion  for  the  view  (predominant  throughout  the  Middle  Ages) 
of  a  fourfold  sense  of  Scripture.     Cf.  De  Genesi  ad  litt.  (in 

1  It  is  inexact  to  speak  of  Jerome  as  translator  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments. The  fact  is,  he  translated  the  Old  Testament  anew,  but  the 
New  Testament  (either  the  Gospels  alone,  as  some  suppose,  or  all  the 
books,  as  others  suppose,  but  the  Gospels  most  thorou^jhly),  he  only 
revised.    Cf.  Westcott,  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible  (Am.  ed.),  p.  ^45.  —  Te. 


36  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

inlt.)  ;  De  utilitate  credendi  3  :  "  Omnis  igitur  scriptura,  quae 
testamentum  vetus  Tocatur,  -diligenter  earn  nosse  cupientibus 
quadrifariam  traditur,  secuudum  historiam,  secundum  aetiolo- 
giam,  secundum  analogiam  et  secundum  allegoriam."  In  his 
exegetical  praxis,  indeed,  he  sometimes  advances  good  and  vig- 
orous thoughts  ;  but,  on  the  whole,  for  the  reasons  mentioned^ 
he  has  not  greatly  furthered  exegesis.  To  what  excess  of  exe- 
getical or  rather  of  unexegetical  ballast  the  adoption  of  the 
view  of  the  fourfold  sense  of  Scripture  when  joined  with  a 
propensity  to  allegorize  may  lead,  is  to  be  seen  in  the  example 
Gregory  the  of  Gregory  the  Great  (f  604).  His  "  Expositio  (Moralia)  in 
Jobum "  in  thirty-five  books,  without  accomplishing  anything 
for  the  ascertaining  of  the  sense,  spreads  itself  over  the  whole 
field  of  practical  theology.  Nevertheless  this  work — utterly 
useless  as  it  is  for  us  —  was  the  admiration  of  his  contem- 
poraries and  of  the  following  centuries. 

22.   Catenists  and  Mediaeval  Exegetes. 

The  exegetical  spirit  having  fallen  into  such  a  by-path,  we 
must  not  withhold  due  recognition  of  those  efforts  that  were 
directed  towards  the  collecting  and  preserving  of  the  better 

Catenae.  results  of  the  past.  The  so-called  Catenae  belong  to  this  class. 
Through  these,  the  explanations  of  the  most  distinguished  of 
the  earlier  interpreters  were  not  only  brought  to  the  remem- 
brance of  the  time,  but  many  valuable  interpretations,  other- 
wise lost,  have  been    handed  down  to   us.     In  the  Eastern 

Procopius.  Church  Procopius  of  Gaza  (in  the  sixth  century)  may  be 
mentioned  as  the  pre-eminent  collector  of  this  kind.  Here, 
also,  belong  the  often  very  valuable  Scholia  of  which  Matthai 
has  incorporated  a  large  part  into  his  edition  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Far  less,  that  is  valuable  in  this  regard,  did  the  Latin 
Church  produce  than  the  Greek,  a  consequence  of  the  fact  that 
the  Greek  Catenists  drew  for  the  most  part  from  Chrysostom, 
while  the  Latin  drew  chiefly  from  Augustine.  At  the  same 
time  exegetical  production  did  npt  altogether  cease.     The  Ven- 

Bede.  erahle  Bede  (f  735)  wrote  commentaries  on  several  books  of 

the  Old  Testament,  and  on  most  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the 


HISTORY   OP  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  37 

spirit  of  his  time,  of  course,  but  with  marvellous  industry. 
Walafrid  Strabo  (t  849)  through  his  '"  Glossa  ordinaria  in  strabo. 
Biblia,"  was,  for  a  long  time,  the  pilot  of  exegesis.  Thomas 
Aquinas  (f  1274),  the  celebrated  scholastic,  is  as  an  exegete  Aquinas, 
comparatively  unbiassed,  at  least  fundamentally.  This  is  clear 
from  his  assertion  (Sum.  I.  qu.  1,  art.  10):  "  Omnes  sensus 
sciipturae  fundantur  super  unum  sensum  litteralem,  ex  quo 
solo  potest  trahi  argumentum,  non  autem  ex  iis,  quae  secun- 
dum allegoriam  dicuntur."  His  exegetical  praxis,  indeed,  kept 
far  behind  this  insight,  because  he  lacked  the  most  essential 
qualification  to  Scripture  interpretation -r- linguistic  knowledge 
and  historical  perception.  Yet  his  exegetical  works  are  not 
wanting  in  good  thoughts.  This  defect  inheres  in  the  mediaeval 
period  in  general.  Hence  there  could  be  no  advance  in  inter- 
pretation. But  what  it  could  do,  it  did :  It  collected  and  pre- 
served ;  and  what  was  thus  preserved  waited  for  new  fructifying 
elements,  which  were  to  be  introduced  in  the  second  half  of 
the  fifteenth  century. 

23.  Influence  of  Humanism. 
.  The  time  when  Humanism  blossomed  forth,  produced  at 
last  a  more  or  less  philological  interpretation.  Nicolaus  of  Nicoiaus  d 
Lyra  (f  1340)  is  to  be  me'ntioned  as  the  forerunner  of  this 
new  direction.  He  is  the  first  Scripture  interpreter  of  the 
J^.liddle  Ages  that  was  acquainted  with  the  original  languages 
of  the  Bible.'  His  ''Postilla  perpetua  in  V.  et  Nov.  Testa- 
men  tum,"  a  work  very  meritorious  for  the  time,  is  more  valu- 
able for  the  Old  than  for  the  New  Testament,  for  the  reason 
that  the  author  had  the  assistance  of  Jewish  interpreters  esp. 
Sal.  Jarchi.  At  the  same  time,  he  also  did  homage  to  the  view 
of  a  fourfold  sense  of  Scripture,  according  to  the  maxim  : 
"  Littera  gesta  docet,  qui<l  credas,  allegoria;  Moralis  quid  agas, 
quo  tendas  anagogia."  Luther  is  said  to  have  made  great  use 
of  his  Postilla ;  hence  the  dictum  of  the  Catholics  :  Si  Lyra 

^  This  statement  requires  to  be  njodified,  inasmuch  as  Bogcr  Bacon 
(tl29!),  though  not  distinctively  a  Scripture  in.crpretcr,  was  thorou^jhly 
acquainted  with  Ilciirew  and  Greek,  and  exerted  a  lasting  influence  in  favor 
of  the  study  cf  ihe  Scriptures  in  the  original  tongues.  —  Tn. 
4 


38 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 


haurentius   non    Ivrasset,    Lutheriis    non    saltasset."      Laurentius  Valla 

Valla. 

(tl456),  the  celebrated  humanist  and  critic  of  the  fables  of 
the  popes,  wrote  "  Annotationes  in  N.  Testamentum"  in  a 
purely  philological  interest.  But  since  in  that  time  the  ecclesi- 
astically disposed  had  no  interest  for  philological  treatment, 
and  most  of  the  humanists  had  none  for  Scripture,  his  work 
found  no  acceptance.     More  important  for  the  history  of  Scrip- 

LeFevre.  ture  interpretation  is  Le  Fevre  d'Esfnphs  (Faber  Stapulensis, 
1450-1536).  He  directed  his  attention  less  to  the  philological 
and  the  critical  than  to  the  religious  contents.  He  published 
(1512)  a  Commentary  on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  later.  Commen- 
taries on  the- Gospels  and  on  the  Catholic  Epistles.  The  gram- 
matical and  historical  sense  is  little  regarded,  but  he  is  also 
largely  free  from  allegory.  For  the  reason  that  he  not  only 
inclines  strongly  to  the  religious  side,  but.  independently  of 
church  dogma,  seeks  to  draw  this  from  Scripture  itself,  he  stands 
hard  on  the  borders  of  the  Reformation.  For  the  French  Refor- 
mation he  may  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  an  epoch.    It  was 

Erasmus,  the  merit  of  Desiderius  Erasmus  (1467-1536)  to  have  made 
the  whole  gain  of  humanism  redound  to  the  furtherance  of 
New  Testament  study.  Through  his  paraphrase  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  more  still  through  his  "Annotationes  in  N. 
Testamentum"  (1522),  he  contributed  in  an  unusual  degree  to 
a  better  and  more  judicious  treatment  of  Scripture.  Especially 
did  he  already  thoroughly  comprehend  the  relation  of  the  New 
Testament  Greek  to  the  classical.  His  exegetical  method  was 
directed  as  well  against  the  method  of  the  Catenists  as  against 
all  arbitrary  allegorizing.  He  condemns  all  dependence  on  par- 
tisan authority.  Although  his  principal  interest  was  the  phil- 
ological, religious  interest  is  by  no  means  foreign  to  him.  He 
regards  the  fear  of  God,  as  well  as  the  desire  for  knowledge,  as 
an  indispensable  condition  for  the  understanding  of  Scripture. 
Upon  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament  lie  likewise 
bestowed  great  industry;*  yet,  on  account  of  the  defectiveness 

1  The  labors  of  Erasmus  in  Textual  Criticism  are  very  liable  to  be  over- 
rated.   He  seems  to  have  employed  extremely  few  uss  ,  and  to  have 


His  labors 
in  Textual 
Criticism. 


HISTORY   OP  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  39 

of  the  materials  at  his  command,  his  work  in  this  department 
is  less  important.  Nevertheless  his  edition  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament became  the  foundation  for  New  Testament  criticism ; 
the  second  edition  (1519)  served  Luther  for  his  translation.  At 
all  events  Erasmus  is  the  inaugurator  of  genuine  biblical  study, 
and  the  most  immediate  forerunner  of  the  Reformation. 

We  ought  not  at  this  point  to  pass  over  entirely  the  Jewish  Jewish  in- 

terpreter.-i. 

endeavors  at  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament.  From 
the  twelfth  to  the  fifteenth  century  there  was  great  scientific 
activity  among  the  Jews,  on  the  Pyrenaean  peninsula.  Their 
knowledge  of  Hebrew,  their  familiarity  with  the  customs  and 
usages  of  their  people,  their  acquaintance  with  the  theological 
tradition  thereof,  put  them  in  a  position  to  accomplish  consider- 
able for  the  explanation  of  the  Old  Testament,  at  a  time  when 
Christians  lacked  the  necessary  knowledge.  Yet  their  de- 
pendence on  Jewish  tradition  and  their  propensity  to  hair- 
splitting, often  led  them  astray.  Especially  worthy  of  notice 
are  Abr.  Ahen-Ezra  (t  1167),  Sal.  Isaac  Jarchi  (Raschi 
t  1170),  David  Kimchi  (t  1190),  Isaac  Abarbanel  (t  1405), 
Elias  Levita  (f  1549),  which  latter  was  not  distinctively  an. 
exegete,  but  rather  a  grammarian,  and  taught  in  Italy.  So  also, 
not  as  an  exegete,  but  as  the  author  of  a  kind  of  hermeneutics 
is  the  distinguished  thinker  Maimonides  (f  1206)  to  be  men- 
tioned. From  these  Jewish  scholars  Nic.  de  Lyra  (see  above), 
to  some  extent,  and  especially  Reuchlin,  received  great  aid. 

24.    Exegesis  of  the  Reformation. 

Scripture  interpretation  received  a  new  impulse  through  the 
Reformation.  Humanism  had  prepared  the  way,  in  that  it  put 
upon  a  proper  basis  the  study  of  the  sources  and  the  languages 
of  Scripture,  proved  the  groundlessness  of  many  ecclesiastical 
tenets,  and  opposed  philological  investigation  to  the  scholastic 
hair-splitting.  But  the  deep  inner  struggling  for  truth  and 
salvatimi  was  requisite  in  order,  by  the  power  of  conscience 
grounded  in  the  word  of  God,  to  break  the  power  of  ecclesias- 

bestowed  very  little  time  on  the  collation  of  these  fow.  Cf.  Scrivener^ 
Introd  to  the  Text.  Crit.  of  the  New  Test.  (ed.  1 ),  pp.  391  ff.  —  Tr. 


40  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

tical  tradition.  The  word  of  justifying  faith  opened  up  to 
Luther  the  understanding  of  Scripture,  especially  of  the  Paulhie 
Epistles.  The  need  of  the  wretched,  burdened  soul ;  the  draw- 
ing of  the  sincere  soul  to  Christ,  was  for  Zwingle  a  key  to  the 
truth  of  Scripture.  The  all-working  power  of  divine  grace, 
and  the  opposition  of  the  world,  introduced  Calvin  into  the  un- 
derstanding of  Scripture.  This  led  to  that  unconditional  ven- 
eration of  Scripture  as  the  only  pure  and  certain  source  of 
faith.  Hence  his  aversion  to  allesjorizinoj  and  the  torturing 
of  the  verbal  sense  ;  hence  also  the  fundamental  principle 
that  only  the  "  clear  word  of  Scripture  "  may  serve  as  proof  of 
a  doctrine  or  of  an  ecclesiastical  usage.  But  most  far-reaching 
of  all  is  the  fundamental  principle  that  Scripture  is  to  be  inter- 

Luthcr.  preted  not  by  tradition,  but-  "  by  itself."  Luther  (1483-1546), 
wrote  many,  in  part  elaborate,  explanations  of  biblical  books  ; 
we  mention  here  his  notes  on  the  Psalms,  on  Genesis,  on  the 
*'  Sermon  on  the  Mount,"  on  many  passages  of  the  Gospel  of 
John,  which  was,  in  his  opinion,  "  the  only  tender,  genuine, 
principal  Gospel,"  then  especially  an  elaborate  Commentary 
on  Galatians.  His  prefaces  to  the  individual  books,  esj)ecially 
to  Romans  and  the  Psalms,  are  very  valuable.  Although 
Luther's  knowledge  of  Greek  v/as  limited,  and  his  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  insignificant,^  and  although  the  exegetical  helps  of 
the  time  must  be  characterized  as  very  defective,  yet  by  dint 
of  bis  religious  genius,  which  with  imperfect  knowledge  often 
felt  out  the  kernel  of  the  matter,  he  did  a  noble  work.  To 
this  his  translation  of  the  Bible  (begun  in  1521,  completed  in 
1534),  bears  ample  witness.  Frequently  aS  he  has  missed  the 
sense  in  the  prophetical  and  the  poetical  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, yet  in  general  his  translation,  in  point  of  religious  spirit 
and  original  German  expression,  has  long  remained  a  master- 

Zv\  ingle.  piece.  Zwiufjle  (1484-1531)  did  not  possess  Luther's  pro- 
found genius,  but  was  his  superior  in  linguistic  knowledge  and 
in  considerate  clearness.  Instead  of  the  discipline  of  the  cloister 

1  Cf.  Art.  "Luther,"  in  Hcrzo'^^'s  R.  E.  — Tr. 


HISTORY   OP   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  41 

and  the  patristic  culture  —  as  with  Luther  —  he  was  led  by 
humanism  and  by  profound  longing  for  truth  to  the  study  and 
understanding  of  the  Scriptures.  He  wrote  scholastic  notes  on 
Genesis  and  Exodus,  on  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  ;  more  complete 
commentaries  on  the  Gospels,  among  which  that  on  Matthew, 
is  especially  celebrated.  These  explanations  contain  much 
that  is  excellent ;  yet  it  may  turn  out  that  the  "  considerate'* 
Zwingle  allows  himself  oftener  in  allegory  than  Luther.  His 
exegetical  position  may  be  known  most  clearly  from  his  polem- 
ical writings  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  controversial  writings 
on  both  sides  show  how  Zwingle  went  to  the  Scriptures  pre- 
ponderatingly  with  the  historical  sense,  Luther  with  the  mys- 
tical. Unquestionably,  the  greatest  exegete  of  the  Reformation 
period  was  Calvin  (1509-1564).  How  he  viewed  the  work  of  Calvin, 
an  interpreter  he  makes  known  in  various  places,  e,g.  when  in 
the  preface  to  his  notes  on  Romans  he  says :  "  Sane  quum  hoc 
sit  prope  unicum  illius  (interpretis)  officium,  mentem  scriptoris, 
quern  explicandum  sumpsit,  patefacere  :  quantum  ab  ea  lectores  - 
abducit,  tantumdem  a  scopo  suo  aberrat;"  and  when  in  the 
classical  preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms  he  thus 
expresses  himself  :  "  Si  labor  a  me  in  his  commentariis  sumptus 
lectoribus  proderit,  sciant  mediocri  certaminum  (quibus  me 
Deus  exercuit)  experientia  non  mediocriter  fuisse  adjutiim, 
non  modo  ut  acconunodarem  ad  praesentem  usum,  quidquid 
licuerit  doctrinae  colligere,  sed  ut  ad  consilium  scriptoris 
cujusque  psalmorum  intelligendum  familiarior  pateret  via.'* 
His  exegesis  is  clear  and  considerate.  No  other  Reformer  was 
so  decided  an  opponent  of  allegorizing.  Of  the  Messianic 
explanation  of  the  OjcI  Tesiamcnl  passages  he  makes  very  mod- 
erate use  ;  mistakes  in  the  biblical  authors  (e.g.  Matt,  xxvii.  9  ; 
Acts  vii.  1 G),  he  recognizes  as  sucli  without  hesitation,  and  shows 
often  a  freedom  from  bias  remarkable  for  his  time.  Excellently 
did  he  succeed,  in  many  cases,  in  grasping  the  line  of  thought 
and  the  intention  of  the  sacred  author.  This  is  manifest  not 
only  in  his  explanation  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  but  also  in  his 
explanation  of  the  Psalms,  where  with  all  the  defectiveness  of 
4* 


42  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

his  linguistic  and  historical  helps  he  was  often  able,  with  the 
vision  of  a  seer,  to  discover  and  to  set  forth  the  thought  of  the 
psalmist.  That  he  v/as  often  betrayed  into  a  dogmatic  and 
polemical  treatment  is  explicable  from  his  time.  Neither  is  it 
to  be  denied  that  his  sharp  juridical  understanding  led  him  rather 
to  dissect  than  to  explain  the  thought  of  the  sacred  author. 
Alongside  of  this  Coryphaeus  of  the  Reformation,  a  number  of 

exeeetes  Other  men  distinguished  themselves  as  exegetes  :  Oecolampa- 
dius,  3farf.  Bucer,  Bullinger,  and  especially  Wolfg.  Musculus 
and  Bened.  Aretius.  The  controversy  between  Protestants  and 
Catholics  had  to  do  with  exegesis,  in  as  far  as  the  Protestant 
principle  that  Scripture  is  to  be  explained  not  by  tradition,  but 
by  itself,  was  disputed  by  the  Catholics.  Bullinger  elucidated 
this  point  admirably  when  he  said  (Comf.  Helv.  II.  c.  2)  : 
"  . . . .  Illam  duntaxat  scripturarum  interpretationem  pro  ortho- 
doxa  et  genuina  aguoscimus,  quae  ex  ipsis  est  petita  scripturis 
(ex  ingenio  utique  ejus  linguae,  in  quae  sunt  scripta,  secun- 
dum circumstantias  item  expensa,  et  pro  ratione  locorum 
vel  similium  vel  dissimilium,  plurium  quoque  et  clariorum 
exposita)  cum  regula  fidei  et  charitatis  congruit,  et  ad  gloriam 
Dei  hominumque  salutem  eximie  facit.  —  Proinde  non  asper- 
namur  sanctorum  Patrum  graecorum  latinorumque  interpre- 
tationes,  neque  reprobamus  eorumdem  disputationes  ac  tracta- 
tiones  rerum  sacrarum  cum  scripturis  consentientes  :  a  quibus 
tamen  recedimus  modeste,  quando  aliena  a  scripturis  aut  his 

Flacius.  contraria  adferre  deprehenduntur."  —  Matth.  Flacius  (f  1575), 
finally,  embraced  the  whole  gain  of  the  exegesis  of  the  Refor- 
mation period  in  his  "  Clavis  Scripturae  Sacrae,"  and  reduced 
it  to  theory. 

25.   Lutheran  and  Reformed  Exegetes. 

Protostant  The  domination  of  Protestant  orthodoxy  had  an  influence 
on  exegesis  similar  to  that  of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  patristic 
church.  Orthodoxy  arose  from  the  struggles  of  Protestantism 
for  self-preservation  and  organization.  Its  influence  on  Scrip- 
ture interpretation  was  not  first  of  all  an  unmitigated  evil.  It 
was  attempted  to  explain  the  Scriptures  by  the  fundamental 


orthodoxy. 


HISTORY  OF  SCRIPTUEE   INTERPRETATION.  43 

thought  of  Protestantism  which  had  been  drawn  chiefly  from 
the  Pauline  Epistles.  Men  were  led  to  regard  the  Scriptures 
as  an  organic  whole  pervaded  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  had, 
indeed,  the  disadvantage,  that  the  Pauline  thoughts  and  prin- 
ciples were  lugged,  e.g.  into  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  nay,  even 
into  the  Old  Testament.  Altogether,  the  deleterious  influence 
of  the  orthodox  dogmatism  on  Scripture  interpretation  ap- 
peared soon  enough  and  strongly  enough.  The  Scriptures 
came  to  be  regarded  too  much  as  an  arsenal  for  the  combating 
of  opponents,  and  exegesis  was  forced  to  minister  to  this  object. 
Thus  many  passages  that  seemed  more  favorable  to  opponents 
than  to  their  own  views,  were  pressed  until  they  said  what  was 
required  of  them.      Here,  however,  is  manifest  a  difference  P^^^*"®"^ 

between  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  treatment  of  Scripture,  theran  aad 

•^  ^  Reformed. 

The  Lutheran  Church  and  theology  rooting  more  in  the  central 

soteriological  thoughts  of  Protestantism,  and  therefore  more 
dogmatic,  looked  at  Scripture  predominantly  through  these  fun- 
damental thoughts ;  while  the  Reformed,  fixing  its  attention  more 
on  the  process  of  grace,  and  therefore  more  historical,  kept  exe- 
gesis for  a  longer  time  independent  of  dogmatics.  "We  find, 
therefore,  in  this  period  more  and  better  results  on  the  Reformed 
side ;  yet  good  results  are  not  altogether  wanting  among  the 
Lutherans.  a)  Lutheran  exegetes.  Among  those  that  dis-  i^utheraa 
tinguished  themselves  during  this  period  we  may  mention : 
Hunnius  (f  1603),  Polyc,  Leyser  (f  IGIO),  Sal  Glassius 
(t  1656),  author  of  the  "  Philologia  Sacra,"  and,  altogether 
pre-eminently,  Abr.  Calov  (f  1686),throu£jh  his  principal  work 
directed  against  Hugo  Grotius  :  "  Biblia  Illustrata"  (1672),  in 
which  learning  is  combined  with  earnest  penetration  into  the 
religious  and  divine  contents  of  Scripture  ;  yet  also,  it  is  true, 
with  the  austerity  which  belonged  to  those  times  and  to  that 
man.  Seh.  Schmidt,  Martin  Gejer,  and  Geo.  Calixtus,  already 
show  a  tendency  towards  a  freer  treatment.  h)  Reformed  exe-  ^^J^J^^^ 
getes.  Here  the  influence  of  Calvin  is  observable  in  Theod.  Beza  Beza. 
(1519-1605),  who  yet,  both  as  biblical  critic  and  as  exegete, 
was  an  independent  worker.     He  made  use  of  Stephanu8*8 


44  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

collection  of  variations,  in  attempting  to  set  forth  as  accurate 
as  possible  a  recension  of  the  New  Testament  text.  He  pre- 
pared also  notes  on  the  New  Testament  (1557),  which  indeed 
in  the  ascertainment  of  the  connection  of  the  thought,  and,  in 
part,  even  in  independence  of  exegetical  tradition  fall  behind' 
Calvin's  exegesis ;  but  in  learning  and  in  philological  accu- 
racy surpass  this.  Altogether,  he  takes  a  distinguished  place 
among  the  exegetes  of  this  period.     Yet  his  critical  labors  left 

Piscator.  much  to  be  desired,  even  for  that  time.  Joh.  Piscator  (1546— 
1625)  is  worthy  of  mention  also  both  as  Bible  translator  and 
Bible  interpreter.  His  translation  of  the  Bible  (1602  ff.)  gained 
in  some  reformed  countries  a  very  high  authority.  It  gives  evi- 
dence of  linguistic  knowledge,  and  is  distinguished  for  fidelity ; 
but  it  is  destitute  of  grace  and  flexibility.  His  notes  have  the 
same  qualities  of  fidelity  and  accuracy ;  but  these  also  are  abso- 
lutely destitute  of  poetical  appreciation.  Yet  they  show,  time 
and  again,  a  certain  impartiality,  as,  e.g.  when  Job  xix.  25  is  not 
interpreted  as  referring  to  the  resurrection.     Prominent  with 

Dutch  reference  to  biblical  study  stands  the  Dutch  Church,  of  which 

the  very  excellent  translation  of  the  Bible,  undertaken  by  order 

of  the  Council  of  Dort,  and  completed  in  the  year  1 634,  furnishes 

English       proof.     Scarcely  less  worthy  of  praise  is  the  English  Version,^ 
Version.        ^  ^  i        x  t    /  «.  t    •  i    t 

prepared  under  James  1,  by  a  great  conference  divided  into 

sections  for  the  work,  and  published  in  1611.     Among  those 

who  were  engaged  on  the  latter  translation  were  such  men  as 

Launcelot   Andrews,  Harding,  Reynolds,  Smith,  Abbot,  and 

others.     Among  the  Dutch,  indeed,  the  exegetes  were  likewise 

dependent  for  the  most  part  on  dogmatics,  as  especially  Andr. 

iMvetusand  Rivetus  and  F.  Gomarus  (f  1641).     With  them  also  exegesis 

was  required  to  furnish  weapons  for  their  theological  combats. 

But  linguistic  learning,  which  most  of  them  possessed,  gives  to 

their  exegesis  a  scientific  support,  and  the  smaller  or  greater 

measure  of  this  latter  conditions  the  nearer  or  more  remote 

1  Cf,  on  the  English  Version :  Schaff  on  Revision  (treatises  by  EUicott, 
Lightfoot,  and  Trench);  Mrs.  II.  C.  Conant,  History  of  the  English  UiOle; 
Plumptre,  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible.  —  Tb. 


HISTORY  OP  SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  45 

approach  to  the  more  liberal  tendency  now  just  being  inau- 
gurated.   (Cf.  below). 

26.   Reaction  against  Dogmatism. 

Thus  under  the  domination  of  the  scholastic  polemics,  bibli- 
cal philology,  at  least,  and  its  application  carried  on  their  quiet 
work.  The  scholastic  dogmatism,  it  is  true,  maintained  its  pre- 
dominance.    But  lust  this  called  forth  a  reaction  of  biblical  Tiie 

.  reactiou- 

Christianity,  directed  towards  the  essential  and  the  practical,  and 
with  this  the  beginning  of  a  preponderance  of  biblical  study  over 
dogmatics.  The  inaugurator  of  this  reaction  in  the  Netherlands 
was  Cocceius  ;  in  Germany,  Spener.  Joh.  Cocceius  (11669)  Cocceiiw 
expressed  his  theological  tendency,  in  the  preface  to  his 
"  Summa  de  foedere  et  tQstamento  Dei,"  in  the  following  words : 
"  Multum  sine  dubio  pietate  officiunt  Ziy-nycrct?  fxiopal  koI  airaC- 
Sevrat.  . . .  E  contrario  ad  pietatem  necessaria  est  scrutatio 
Verbi  Dei,  spiritualium  cum  spiritualibus  comparatio,  demon- 
stratio  veritatis,  quae  est  secundum  pietatem,  ad  conscientiam 
fundamenti  religionis  et  dvaXoyia?  -rqq  Trto-Tcws  <Tvv€.(nv  ..."  He 
was  an  opponent  of  the  scholastic  method  also  in  Scripture  in- 
terpretation. He  sets  forth  the  fundamental  principle  of  his 
exegesis  as  follows":  "  Id  significant  verba,  quod  significare 
possunt  in  Integra  oratione,  sic  ut  omnia  inter  se  conveniant," 
i.e.  the  words  mean  what  the  connection  lets  them  mean.  His 
federal  theology  also  had  an  influence  on  his  treatment  of 
Scripture,  in  as  far  as  not  dogma,  but  the  economy  of  salvation, 
was  his  guiding  principle.  This  might  lead  to  a  natural  religio- 
historical  —  it  might  also  lead  to  an  artificial  typological  treat- 
ment. Cocceius  was  too  much  under  the  influence  of  his  time 
not  to  have  fallen  into  the  latter.  Yet  it  was  already  a  great 
gain,  that  an  attempt  was  made  to  give  to  Scripture,  and  indeed 
to  the  fundamental  idea  of  Scripture,  the  supremacy  in  theology. 
As  Cocceius's  federal  theology  was  further  developed  by  his 
disciples  Braun,  Burman,  and  Witsius,  so  his  exegesis  was  im- 
proved and  applied  by  the  two  Vitringas ;  especially  by  the 
celebrated  interpreter  of  Isaiah,  Campegius  Vitringa  (f  1788).  Vitringa. 
Yet  Vitringa  was  an  independent   interpreter.     His  surmises 


46  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 

as  to  when  this  or  that  prophecy  reached  its  fulfilment  belong, 
indeed,  to  his  time  ;  but  his  rare  acquaintance  with  the  biblical 
languages,  his  industrious  use  of  the  exegetical  apparatus  hith- 
erto collected,  his  notices  of  the  foreign  ^^eoples  against  whom 
the  prophecies  are  directed,  finally  the  careful  consideration 
of  the  sense  of  individual  passages,  constitute  Vitringa's  com- 
mentary an  epoch-making  phenomenon  in  the  history  of  the 
interpretation  of  the  prophet.  Another  distinguished  theo- 
logian of  this  category,  by  birth  a  German,  by  education  and 

Lampe.  official  position,  in  part,  a  Netherlander,  was  Adolf  Lamj)e 
(t  1683-1729),  through  his  principal  dogmatic  work,  "Geheim- 
niss  des  Gnadenbundes,"  *  standing  on  essentially  the  same 
ground  with  Cocceius,  and,  until  Schlejermacher,  a  leading  au- 
thority with  the  Reformed  Church.  As  exegete,  he  attained  to 
great  merit  by  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  (1723  ff.). 

8pener  and  What  Cocceius  was  for  the  Netherlands,  and   more,  Spener 

I'ranke.  ^ 

and  A.   H.   Franhe    were    for    Germany,      in    the    place    of 

abstract  scholasticism  biblical  study  was  set  up,  and  so  far  as 
the  influence  of  Pietism  extended,  was  pushed  forward  with 
zeal.  In  what  sense  this  happened  in  the  first  and  better  time 
of  Pietism,  the  statement  of  Franke  (Observ.  Bibl.),  may  show. 
"  It  is  well  and  commendable  that  the  study  of  the  fundamental 
languages  is  urged  forward,  and  it  is  not  urged  forward  long 
enough,  nor  with  due  industry  in  the  schools  and  jiniversities. 
But  we  should  see  to  it  that  we  do  not  remain  hung  up  in  the 
science  of  languages  and  philology ;  but  that  we  make  it  our 
great  object  to  arrive  at  a  proper  understanding  of  the  matter 
itself,  which  is  brought  before  us  in  God's  word  ;  and  to  this 
end  we  should  industriously  supplicate  God  for  the  enlighten- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  principal  efforts  of  the  Pietists 
were  directed  tov/ards  the  edificatory  application  of  Scri^^ture, 
as  we  may  see  from  Franke's  "  Manuductio  ad  Lectionem 
Scripturae  Sacrae."  This  predominance  of  effort  at  edification 
soon  degenerated,  indeed,  into  indifference  to  science,  and  at 
last   into  proud  contempt   for   it.     Mystical    and    typological 

1  "  Mystery  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace." 


HISTORY  OF  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  47 

trifling  arose ;  Chiliastic  phantasies  found  great  acceptance  ; 
the  Scriptures  were  not  so  much  explained  as  overwhelmed 
with  pious  reflections.  Emphases  were  found  were  none  exist. 
Yet  in  proportion  as  Pietism  fell  into  such  degeneracy,  Ortho- 
doxy revived,  drawing  into  itself,  as  it  did,  the  better  elements 
of  Pietism.  J.  J.  Rambach  and  J.  A.  Bengel  are  distinguished 
representatives  of  such  a  purified  Pietism,  or  of  such  a  deep- 
ened Orthodoxy.  Ramhach  (1693—1730)  is  the  author  of  no  Rambach. 
exegetical  work,  but  of  the  very  excellent  "  Institutiones  Her- 
meneuticae  Sacrae."  Far  more  scientific  than  the  similar  work 
of  Franke,  this  also  paid  its  tribute  to  Pietism  through  the 
exaggerated  valuation  of  emphases.  Bengel  (1687-1751)  is  Bengel. 
celebrated  as  a  Scripture  interpreter.  He  may  well  be  desig- 
nated the  most  important  exegete  since  Calvin.  Bengel  thus 
sets  forth  the  tendency  and  character  of  correct  Scripture  in- 
terpretation (Praef.  ad  Gnomon  N.  T.)  :  "  Omnis  interpreta- 
tionis  maxime  proprium  est,  ut  vis  et  significatio  verborum,  quae 
textus  habet,  declaretur  adaequate,  i.e.  ut  quidquid  ex  mente 
auctoris  verba  valeant,  capiatur  ;  nil,  quod  ea  non  valent  finga- 
tur.  ...  In  Scripturis  divinis  summa  profunditas  cum  summa 
facilitate  conjungitur  :  quare  cavendum  est,  ne  ad  nostrum  illas 
modulum  in  interpretando  exigamus,  neve,  quia  anxia  solicitu- 
dine  careant  scriptores  sacri,  ideo  etiam  illorum  verba  quasi 
minus  considerate  posita  tractemus."  Pre-eminent  among  his 
exegetical  works,  stands  his  "  Gnomon  Novi  Testament! " 
(1742).  Through  profound  understanding  of  Scripture,  through 
a  brief  and  often  excellent  presentation  of  the  sense,  together 
with  a  capacity  to  throw  himself  as  well  into  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels as  into  the  Pauline  Epistles,  Bengel  is  even  yet  in  many 
respects  an  excellent  guide  for  exegetes.  At  the  same  time, 
both  in  the  knowledge  and  the  treatment  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament language,  he  was  far  ahead  of  many  contemporaries. 
The  difference  between  Calvin's  exegesis  and  that  of  Bengel  Calvin  and 
is,  that  Calvin  is  occupied  predominantly  with  the  connection  compared. 
of  thought,  while  Bengel  bestows  most  of  his  lalK)r  on  individ- 
ual words  and  thoughts.     Bengel  also  was  too  much  subject  to 


48  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 

the  doctrine  of  emphases.  But  with  his  contemporaries  Ben- 
gel  gained  still  more  reputation  by  his  interpretation  of  the 
biblical  prophecies,  and  especially  of  the  Apocalypse.  Guided 
by  the  thought  that  the  word  of  God  contains  prophecy  for  all 
times,  he  published  his  "  Ordo  temporum  a  principio  per  perio- 
dos  oeconomiae  divinae  historicas  atque  propheticas  ad  finem 
usque  ita  deductus,  ut  tota  series  —  ex.  V.  et  N.  Testamento 
proponatur"  (1741),  and  his  "  Erkhlrte  Offenbarung  Johan- 
nis."  ^  His  efforts  at  textual  criticism  are  of  high  merit.  His 
"Apparatus  Criticus "  (1734),  together  with  the  results  that 
he  drew  from  it,  expressed  with  great  caution  for  the  benefit 
of  anxious  minds,  is  a  proof  oi  his  critical  conscientiousness. 
Bengel  left  behind  him  a  school  that  was  maintained  at  Wiir- 
temberg  until  far  into  the  nineteenth  century.  From  this  pro- 
Roos.  ceeded  particularly  Magn.  Friedr.  Roos  (f  1803). 

27.    Liberalistic  Exegetes. 

Simultaneously  with  the  scholastic  Orthodoxy,  and  with  the 
appearing  of  Pietism,  more  liberal  tendencies  were  also  at  work. 

Socinians.  The  Sociniaus  had  already,  in  their  peculiar  way,  practised  such 
a  liberal  exegesis.  Faustus  Socinus  and  Jon.  Schlichting  are 
here  to  be  mentioned  as  exegetes.  Their  exegesis,  however, 
was  dominated  by  their  dogmatics,  which  was  a  peculiar  mix- 
ture of  Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism.  This  peculiarity 
appeared  most  prominently  in  their  explanation  of  the  prologue 
of  John's  Gospel,  where  they  explained  Aoyo?  by  metonyme 
through  6  Xiyoiv  (i.e.  the  announcer).  Where  the  specifically 
Socinian  principles  do  not  come  into  consideration  Schlichting's 
explanations,  in  particular,  are  by  no  means    valueless.      A 

Arminians.  better  turn  in  exegesis  came  through  the  Arminians.  In 
opposition  to  the  Calvinistic  dogmatism  they  interpreted  Scrip- 
ture historically,  and  thus  differed  also  from  the  rationalistic 
dogmatism  of  the  Socinians.  Yet  Arminians  and  Socinians 
were  drawn  nearer  to  each  other  througli  their  common  oppo- 
sition to  Orthodoxy.  The  most  decided  representative  of  the 
historical  method  is  Hugo  Grotius  (1583-1645).  His  "Anno- 
1  TLe  Revelation  of  John  Explained. 


HISTORY   OP   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  49 

tationes  in  libros  evangellorum  et  varia  loca  S.  Scripturae " 
and  his  "  Annotationes  in  V.  Testamentum,"  distinguished  as 
they  are  for  historical  perception,  exegetical  tact,  and  aesthetic 
appreciation,  would  have  been  able  to  break  out  a  new  road 
in  Scripture  interpretation,  if  the  time  had  been  ripe  for  it, 
and  if  his  explanations  had  not  been  too  deficient  in  the  under- 
standing of  the  religious  contents  of  Scripture.^  His  works 
called  forth,  therefore,  in  opposition  Calovius's  "  Biblia  Illus- 
trata"  (see  above).  Among  the  Protestant  French  also, 
liberd  tendencies  appeared.  Loids  de  Dieii^  (f  1642)  sur- ^?"'3(ie 
passed  most  of  his  contemporaries  in  linguistic  learning,  and  in 
the  historico-critical  sphit  of  investigation.  Louis  Capellus  of  Capellus. 
Saumur  (f  1633)  first  proved  —  Zwingle  having  expressed  simi- 
lar thoughts,  but  without  proof  —  the  more  modern  origin  of 
the  Hebrew  vowel-points.  His  treatise,  "Arcanum  puncta- 
tionis  revelatum,"  edited  not  by  himself,  but  by  Erpenius, 
called  forth  a  learned  controversy  between  himself  and  the 
younger  Buxtorf.  Joh.  Buxtorf^  the  younger  (1599-1664),  Buxtorf. 
the  learned  author  of  the  "  Lexicon  Chaldaicum,  Talmudicum 
et  Rabbinicum"  (1639),  appeared  with  his  "  Tractatus  de 
punctorum  origine,  antiquitate  et  auctoritate,"  against  Capellus, 
who,  in  turn,  appealing  to  Elias  Levita  and  several  scholars  of 
the  Reformation,  disputed,  in  his  "  Critica  sacra  sive  de  variis 
quae  in  sacris  Y.  Testamenti  libris  occurrunt  lectionibus,'*  the 
genuineness  of  the  Masoretic  text.  Buxtorf  wrote,  finally,  in 
reply  to  this,  his  "Anticritica  sive  vindiciae  veritatis  e  Hebraica 
adv.  L.  Capelli  criticam  ..."  (1653).^  The  Buxtorfian  view 
was  the  Shibboleth  of  Orthodoxy,  and  was,  through  the  second 
Canon  of  the  Formula  Consensus  Helvet.  (1675),  stamped  as  an 
article  of  faith.  So  difficult  was  it  to  fight  against  a  traditional 
view  that  was  regarded  as  a  stronghold  of  Orthodoxy !  This 
controversy  was  limited  to  the  Old  Testament.     Soon,  however, 

i  Strangely  conditional!  —  Tr. 

2  Chiefly  celebrated  for  his  Syriac  learainp:,  —  Tr. 

3  On  Joh.  Buxtorf,  Jun.  cf.  Hagenbach,  Die  theologische  Schule  Basels. 
Jnbilaumsprogvaram,  18G0.  [A  new  edition  of  the  Lex.  Chald.  Talm.  et 
Rab.  has  recently  been  published  in  Germany,  edited  by  Fischer!. 

5 


60 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP  HERMENEUTICS. 


TheN.Test.  ^ew  Testament.' 
assaulted 


Pfochen. 
GroBse. 


Vorst. 


Bocler, 
Olearius, 
and  Leus- 
den 


Emesti. 


an  assault  was  to  be  made  against  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the 
After  Erasmus  had  long  ago  spoken  of  the 
language  of  the  Apostle  as  "  Sermo  non  solum  impolitus,  sed 
etiam  imperfectus  et  perturbatus ; "  after  Drusius  and  Glassius 
had  pointed  out  Hebraisms  in  the  New  Testament;  then,  in 
1637,  Joachim  Junge,  in  Hamburg,  made  his  appearance  with 
the  well-founded  and  at  the  same  time  circumspect  proof,  that 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament  is  —  not  indeed  barbarous, 
but  —  Hellenistic  ;  and  this  view  was  also  maintained  by  Dav. 
Hensius  and  Th.  Gataker.  Against  Drusius  and  Glassius, 
Seh.  Pfochen,  and  against  Junge,  Jak.  Grosse  maintained  the 
purity  of  the  New  Testament  style.  Yet  the  latter  combated 
less  the  fact  itself  than  the  consequences  that  might  be  deduced 
from  it.  Joh,  Vorst  now  came  forward  (1658)  with  an  indus- 
trious collection  of  New  Testament  Hebraisms  ;  yet  not  without 
a  refutation  by  the  younger  Vitringa.  Bocler,  Olearius,  and 
Leusden  took  middle  ground.  Yet  the  view  prevailed  more 
and  more,  that  the  New  Testament  idiom  is  not  indeed  a  bar- 
barous one,  though  deviating  very  much  from  pure  Greek. 
This  view  was  insisted  upon  with  much  emphasis  by  Ilemster- 
huys,  S.  Werenfels,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  and  others.  The  contro- 
versy lasted  till  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  not 
without  the  slipping  in  of  many  an  exaggeration  on  both  sides. 
The  correct  view,  finally,  was  brought  to  recognition  through 
the  school  of  Emesti,  and  Ernesti's  opinion  that  "  genus  ora- 
tionis  in  libris  N.  Testameuti  esse  e  pure  Graecis  et  Hebraicam 
maxime  consuetudinem  referentibus  verbis  formulisque  dicendi 
mixtum  et  temperatum,  id  quidem  adeo  evidens  est  iis,  qui 
satis  Graece  sciunt,  ut  plane  misericordia  digni  sint,  qui  omnia 
bene  Graeca  esse  contendant "  —  met  no  longer  with  serious 
contradiction.  The  inspiration  and  the  infallibility  of  the 
traditional  text  was  likewise  held  the  less  firmly,  the  more  the 
mass  of  variations  increased  and  textual  criticism  came  to  be 
recognized  as  an  indispensable  condition  of  a  solid  exegesis. 
In  1624  ff.  appeared  the  edition  of  the  New  Testament  of  the 

»  Cf.  Winer,  N.  T.  Grammar  (ed.  Thayer),  Introduction.  —  Tr. 


HISTORY   OF   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  51 

Elzevirs,  which  was  founded  chiefly  on  the  works  of  R.  Ste- 

phanus  and  Beza,  and  which  now  as  Textus  Receptus  attained  The  Textua 

.  1  •      1  1        .       1       -r-.  Keceptus. 

to  almost    canonical    authority.^     But   in  1G57  appeared    the 
English  Polyglot  of  Brian  "Walton  with  a  comparatively  rich  w^aiton's 
critical  apparatus  ;2  in  1707  appeared  the  immeasurably  richer    °  ^^  ^** 
apparatus  of  /.  Mill,  in  1734  Bengel's  critical  edition  of  the  Mill. 
New  Testament,  and  in  1752  the  edition  far  richer  and  more 
valuable  still,  ol  J.  J.   Wetstein.^     But  even  yet  these  efforts  Wetstein. 
were  regarded  with   much  suspicion,  and  even  men  of  more 
moderate  Orthodoxy,    however   much    they   were   inclined  to 
relinquish  the  authority  of  the  ecclesiastical  definitions,  were 
very  indignant  at  the  efforts  of  Wetstein,  which  seemed  to  them 
to  undermine  the  divine  authority  of  Scripture.  —  But  not  only 
were  the  variations  of  the  text  brought  into  an  ever  clearer 
and  clearer  light,  but  in  the  seventeenth  century  light  was  also 
thrown  upon  the  origin  and  fate  of  the  Canon ;  and  this  time 
indeed  it  was  a  Catholic  who  showed,  against  the  Protestants 
who  maintained  the  unique  and  absolute  authority  of  Scripture, 
the  gradual  and  human  origin  of  both  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New,  viz.  Richard  Simon,  who  first  in  1 678  published  his  Richard 
"  Histoire  critique  du  V.  Testament,"  and  in  1685  his  "His-    ^^^^' 
toire   critique    du   N.  Testament,"    and    through  these  works 
became  the  so-called  founder  of  the  science  of  Biblical  Intro- 
duction.    The  influence  of  the  free  spirit  that  had  been  excited, 

1  The  terra  "  Textus  Receptus,"  has  quite  a  difTerent  meaning  in  Ger- 
many from  what  it  has  in  England.  In  England  it  usually  designates 
Stephen's  edition  of  1550;  in  Germany,  the  edition  of  the  Elzevirs  of  1624. 
For  a  collation  of  these  editions,  see  Scrivener,  Introd.  to  the  Criticism 
i>f  the  New  Test.  (1st  ed.),  pp.  304  fF.  —  Tr. 

-  The  greatest  Polyglot  Bible  ever  published.  It  seems  to  have  exercised 
an  immense  influence  on  the  comparative  study  of  the  Shemitic  languages, 
calling  forth,  as  it  did,  the  valuable  heptaglot  lexicon  of  Castellus.  See 
Renan,  Histoire  generale  des  langues  Se'mitiqucs,  p.  178  (4th  ed.).  Walton's 
Polyglot  consists  of  six  large  folio  volumes,  and  contains,  for  the  Old 
Testament,  Hebrew,  Samaritan,  Chaldee,  Syriac,  Aethiopic,  and  Persian 
texts;  for  the  New  Testament,  Greek,  Latin,  Syriac,  Arabic,  Aethopic,  and 
Persian.    Moreover,  it  contains  prolegomena  still  valuable.  —  Tk. 

3  On  Wetstein,  of.  Hagenhach,  as  above,  p.  45  ff. 


52 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF  HERMENEUTICS. 


Free  treat- 
ment of  the 
ccmlents  of 
Scripture. 


The  N.  Test, 
illustrated 
from  the 
Talmud, etc. 


Bochart. 


Celsius. 
Keland. 


Dutch 

exegesis. 


extended  also  to  the  contents  of  Scripture.  The  historical  in- 
terpretation was  applied  not  only  to  the  real  matters  [the 
physical,  geographical,  historical,  and  chronological  matters], 
but  also  to  the  thoughts  of  the  New  Testament.  Orthodoxy 
had  hitherto  proceeded  on  the  assumption  of  an  absolute  oppo- 
sition between  Scripture  and  profane  literature.  The  historical 
interpretation  led  now  to  a  comparison  of  related  literature 
with  Scripture,  and  this  comparison  showed  the  similarity  and 
identity  of  many  conceptions  and  thoughts  in  Scripture  and  in 
the  Jewish  authors.  Parallels  from  tl>e  Talmud  and  the  Rab- 
bins were  collected  in  abundance  by  Lightfoot  (Horae  He- 
braicae  et  Talmudicae  ad  N.  Test.^  1684),  Schottgen  (Horae 
Hebraicae  et  Talmudicae  in  univers.  N.  Testam.  1733),  G. 
Meiischen  (N.  Test  ex  Talmude  illustratum,  1736),  /.  /.  Wetstein 
(N.  Testam.  Graecum  cum  lectionibus  variantibus  nee  non  cum 
commentario  pleniore  ex  script.  Hebr.  Chald.  etc.  1751). 
These  collections  showed  that  there  exists  not  only  a  contrast, 
but  also  a  kinship  between  the  Scriptures  and  other  Jew- 
ish literature.  But  they  subserved  a  still  more  direct  end,  in 
that  a  multitude  of  obscure  passages  of  Scripture  received 
elucidation  from  this  source.  Upon  the  various  departments 
of  Scripture  Archaeology  proper,  greater  industry  was  now 
also  bestowed;  Sam.  Bocharfs  (f  1667)  "  Geographia  sacra," 
is  not  free  indeed  from  untenable  hypotheses,  but  his  "  Hiero- 
zoicon  "  (1663  and  later),  prepared  with  marvellous  learning,  is 
in  great  part,  even  now,  a  mine  for  biblical  investigators.  In 
this  work  is  included  the  '•  Ilierobotanicon''  of  Olaus  Celsius. 
With  the  greatest  praise  is  to  be  mentioned  Hadr.  Eeland  of 
Utrecht  (t  1718),  who,  through  his  "■  Dissertationes  miscel- 
laneae,"  and  altogether  pre-eminently  through  his  "  Palaestina 
ex  monumentis  veteribus  illustrata,"  became  the  founder  of 
Biblical  Geography. 

To  the  latter  scholars  we  add  a  summary  survey  of  what 
the  Dutch  theologians  did  for  biblical  study.     It  were  to  be 

1  This  work  lias  never*  been  superseded,  and  contains  a  great  deal  of 
valuable  matter.    There  is  an  English  edition,  also. —Tr. 


HISTORY  OP   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  53 

expected  that  in  a  country  in  which  the  great  philologists  and 
antiquarians  Jos.  Scaliger,  Dan.  Heinsius,  Joh.  Fr.  Gronov,  and 
Drakenborch,  but  before  all  Hemsterhuys,  Ruhnkenius,  Valck- 
enaer,  and  Wesseling  flourished,  Biblical  Philology  and  Bibli- 
cal Antiquities  would  not  lag  behind.  Here,  also,  more  liberal 
views  gradually  gained  acceptance.  The  philologists  first 
named  were  not  altogether  strangers  to  biblical  study. 
Heinsius  has  already  been  mentioned  above.  Hemsterhuys 
proved  his  interest  in  theological  research  through  his  inaugural 
address,  "  De  Paulo  Apostolo,"  as  afterwards  his  edition  of 
Pollux'  "  Onomasticon,"  was  of  no  small  service  to  New  Tes- 
tament study.  Valckenaer  also,  with  his  "  Observationes 
sacrae,"  is  here  to  be  mentioned.  Among  professed  theolo- 
gians we  mention  first,  Joh.  i)rwsiM5  (t  1616),  Professor  of  Drusius. 
Hebrew  at  Franeker,  and  one  of  the  translators  of  the  Dutch 
Bible.  His  valuable  observations  on  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua, 
Judges,  and  the  Books  of  Samuel,  were  first  published  posthu- 
mously by  his  disciples.  But  an  epoch  in  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  introduced  by  Alh.  Schultens  (1686-1750),- Schultens. 
who  first  pointed  out  the  connection  of  the  Hebrew  with  the 
cognate  dialects,  especially  with  the  Arabic ;  and  the  necessity 
of  acquaintance  with  the  latter  for  a  fruitful  study  of  the  Old 
Testament  language.  This  view  he  propounded  first  in  his 
"  Disputatio  de  utilitate  linguae  Arabiae  in  interpreteuda  S. 
Scriptura"  (1706),  and  on  this  matter  fell  into  a  controversy 
with  Jaq.  Gousset,  who  defended  against  Schultens  the  "Causa 
linguae  Hebraeae  adversus  Arabismi  abusum."  The-  question 
under  discussion  was :  Whether  the  Old  Testament  language, 
like  other  languages,  has  a  human  origin  or  not.  Schultens 
maintained  the  affirmative  against  Gousset's  "  methodus  meta- 
physica  "  in  his  treatise  :  "  Origines  Hebraicae,  sive  Hebraeae 
linguae  antiquissima  natura  ac  indoles  ex  Arabiae  penetralibus 
revocata"  (1724).  .  Bockholdt  is  also  to  be  mentioned,  who  Bockholdt 
wrote  among  other  things,  "  Ueber  den  rechten  Sinn  der  Offen- 
barung  Johannis"^  (1717).  Vitringa^  father  and  son,  have  been  vitringaa. 
1  On  the  true  meaning  of  the  Revelation  of  John. 


54 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 


Clericas. 


Yenema. 


Germany 
and  the 
Nether- 
lands com- 
pared. 


already  mentioned.  The  former  (f  1722),  is  celebrated  not 
only  as  the  author  of  the  Commentary  on  Isaiah,  but  also  of 
the  work  "  De  Synagoga  veteri."  Joh.  Clericus  (t  1736).  not 
by  birth,  but  through  his  activity  and  theological  position, 
belonging  to  the  Netherlands,  and,  at  last,  teacher  in  the 
Remonstrant  Gymnasium  in  Amsterdam,  gained  a  deserved 
reputation  as  exegete,  through  his  Old  Testament  commentaries 
and  through  his  "  Harmonia  Evangelica."  One  of  the  most 
important  of  the  theologians  of  the  Netherlands,  representing 
withal  a  moderately  liberal  tendency,  was  Venema  (f  1787) 
of  Franeker.  Belonging  to  the  Cocceian  school  of  theology, 
in  as  far  as  he  held  to  an  organic  unity  of  development  in  both 
Testaments,  yet  especially  under  the  influence  of  Schultens,  he 
combined  the  historico-critical  investigation  with  living  religious 
insight,  as  appeared  already  in  his  inaugural  address,  "  De  zelo 
veritatis  et  pietatis  genuinae  et  caritatis  pleno."  He  explained 
the  Psalms  historically,  and  referred  many  passages  regarded 
as  Messianic  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabees ;  he  showed  that  the 
second  part  of  Judges  betrays  a  different  hand  from  the  first ; 
that  the  Books  of  Samuel  were  not  written  by  Samuel  himself ; 
that  the  Song  of  Solomon  portrayed  originally  no  mystical, 
but  merely  a  natural  love,  viz.  that  of  Solomon  and  his  beloved. 
Astruc's  view  "  Sur  les  memoires  originaux,  dont  il  parait  que 
Moyse  s'est  servi  pour  composer  la  Genese,"  he  appropriated 
with  some  reservation.  The  Apocalypse,  as  well  as  the  fourth 
Gospel  he  vindicated,  indeed,  to  John  as  the  author,  but  did  not 
believe  that  they  were  edited  by  John  himself.  We  see  that  in 
the  Netherlands  —  thanks  to  philological  ability  and  thorough- 
ness —  the  emancipation  of  Scripture  study  from  the  bonds  of 
ecclesiastical  dogmatism  made  a  slower  but  more  solid  advance 
than  in  Germany.  But  in  general,  the  character  of  this 
period  (from  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  to  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century),  was  the  same  here  as  there;  the  strug- 
gling of  biblical  linguistic  and  historical  science  against  tradi- 
tional ecclesiastical  dogmatism — a  battle  difficult,  at  first  barren 
of  results,  but  later  always  more  and  more  successful,  with 
the  same. 


HISTORY  OP  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  55 

28.  Transitional  Period  in  Exegesis. 

The  appearing  of  Semler  and  Ernesti  may  be  designated  as 
the  dividing  line  betu^een  the  preceding  and  the  succeeding 
epochs.  J.  S.  Semler  (1725-1791)  is  the  founder  of  Biblical  Semler. 
Criticism  in  Germany.  Despite  the  labors  of  R.  Simon  and 
Wetstein,  the  Biblical  Canon  was  regarded  at  the  time  of 
Semler's  appearance  as  an  organic  whoAe  equally  inspired  in 
all  its  parts.  Semler's  "  Abhandlung  vom  freien  Gebrauch 
des  Kanous"  (1771-1774)  showed  the  human  historical  origin 
and  constitution  of  the  Canon  after  he  had  already,  in  his 
treatise  "  Ueber  die  Damonischen,"  represented  certain  biblical 
views  as  mere  conceptions  of  the  time.  Especially  influential  ^ 
was  his  "Apparatus  ad  interpretationem  Novi  Testament!."  To 
him  it  is  more  than  doubtful,  whether  the  biblical  books  were 
designed  to  serve  as  a  firm  doctrinal  standard  for  all  men ; 
certain  he  was  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  accommodated 
themselves  to  Jewish  opinions.  Nevertheless,  Semler  was  no 
Rationalist ;  he  explained  in  his  introduction  to  Baumgarteii's 
"  Glaubenslehre  " ;  "I  would  not  certainly  make  our  poor  little 
reason  the  mistress  of  our  faith."  But  his  views  on  the  Canon 
and  on  the  Text  of  the  Bible,  on  the  local  and  temporal  opin- 
ions in  Scripture,  on  the  accommodation  of  Jesus  to  these 
opinions,  was  a  seed,  which  —  to  Semler's  own  chagrin  —  once 
planted,  grew  all  too  luxuriantly.  J.  A.  Ernesti  (1707-1781),  EmestL 
the  celebrated  philologist,  became  important  for  theology,  and 
especially  for  biblical  study  through  his  "  Institutio  Interpretis 
Novi  Testament!"^  (1761  and  often),  a  book  which  delivered 
Biblical  Exegesis  from  its  theological  exceptional  position,  and 
brought  it  under  the  general  category  of  philological  interpre- 
tation. He  set  forth  the  following  principles,  which  have  been 
received  as  the  imperishable  heritage  of  posterity :  To  be  un-  His  system 
conditionally  rejected  is  the  notion  of  a  manifold  sense  of  eutics^"^*^"" 
Scripture,  and  the  verbal  meaning  is  to  be  held  fast ;  hence 
allegorizing  and  typologizing  are  reprehensible,  unless  the  author 

1  An  excellent  translation,  with  additions,  was  made  by  Professor  Moses 
Stuart,  and  published  at  Andover  in  1842.  —  Tk. 


56  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF   HERMENEUTIGS. 

himself  give  it  to  be  understood  that  with  the  verbal  sense  he 
has  meant  to  combine  still  another.     Inasmuch  as  the  verbal 
meaning  or  the  sensus  grammaticus  is  common  to  sacred  and 
profane  writings,  the  sense  of  words  is   to  be  no    otherwise 
sought  and  found  in  Scripture  than  it  is  to  be  sought  and  found 
in  profane  literature.     False  and  ruinous  is  all  interpretation 
of  Scripture  that  explains  the  verbal  sense  according  to  the  pre- 
supposed actual  sense,  instead  of  conversel}'  deriving  the  actual 
sen^e  from  the  verbal.     The  method  of  ascertaining  the  sense 
in  Scripture,  therefore,  is  just  as  little  an  arbitrary  one  as  in 
profiuie  writings  ;  but,  as  in  the  .latter,  it  is  governed  by  lin- 
guistic laws.     Where  the  sense  is  disputed,  the  verbal  sense 
must  not  be  controlled  by  the  real  sense,  nor  must  greater 
weight  be  attached  to  dogmatic  considerations  than  to  gram- 
Kot  e?seii-    matiCal.     These  principles  are  really  no  other  than  those  laid 
Int'iroif^^'  down  by  the  Reformers.     Melanchthon    had    long   ago    said  : 
Keiormere.  "  i^on  potest  Scriptura  intelligi  theologice,  nisi  antea  intellecta 
sit  grammatice."     The   difference  lies   only  in  the  fact   that 
Ernesti,  equipped  with  richer  and  more  assured  philological 
knowledge,  expressed  these  principles  with  greater  consistency 
and  distinctness.     While,  however,  Ernesti  and   Semler  had 
maintained  such  principles  without  the  forsaking  of  personal 
piety,  these  principles  were  laid  hold  of  by  a  method  of  thought 
foreign  to  the  Christian  spirit  and  to  the  historical  sense,  and 
were  made  subservient  to  a  superficial  treatment  of  Scripture. 
Long  ago  Deism  in  England  had  been  shaking  faith  in  the 
Bible  and  in  Christianity  among  the  educated  ;  long  ago  Vol- 
taire and  the  Encyclopaedists  in  France,  with  wit  and  satire 
for  their  weapons,  had  undermined  Christian  faith,  and  had  set 
up  Sensualism  in  its  place  ;  and  in  Germany  in  Semler's  time, 
ThpWoifen-  appeared    the    "  Wolfenhiittel    Fragments,"    which    not    only 
Kieuts.  ^^^'  subjected  the  biblical  miracles  to  a  destructive  criticism,  dis- 
solving the  resurrection  of  Jesus  by  the  contradictions  of  the 
Gospel  accounts,  but  referred  "  the  object  of  Jesus  and    his 
disciples"  to  fanaticism  and  deceit.     From  1765.  onwards,  ap- 
>'icoiui.       peaicd  F.  Nicolai's  " Allgemeine  deutsche  Bibliothek,"  as  a 


HISTORY   OE   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  57 

tribunal  of  the  dominHnt  interpretation,  which  made  war  not 
only  upon  Orthodoxy,  hut  upon  every  manifestation  of  higher 
fantasy  and  deeper  feeling.  We  see  now  what  influence  the- 
ology, and  especially  exegesis  experienced  from  such  a  revolu- 
tion of  the  method  of  thought.  In  matters  of  biblical  study, 
especially  of  Old  Testament  study,  J.  D.  Michaelis  of  Gottin-  Michaelis 
gcii  (t  1  791)  was  still  esteemed  as  a  high  authority  in  the  second 
hall  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Learned,  theologically  con- 
servative, but,  more  than  he  was  conscious  of,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  spirit  of  the  time,  his  attention  {vas  predomi- 
nantly directed  to  the  realistic,  while  an  apprehension  of  the 
biblical  spirit  is  often  looked  for  in  vain  in  him.  Entirely  to 
the  new  enlightening  belonged,  on  the  other  hand,  W.  Ahr. 
Teller  (1734—1804),  whose  Worterbuch  des  N.  Testaments  Teller. 
(1772  and  often)  is  especially  worthy  of  notice.  The  flatten- 
ing of  Christian  thoughts  and  conceptions  is  here  strikingly 
UKiniiest.  Repent  is  rendered,  *'  become  better  "  ;  to  convert  is 
rendered  "  to  restore  to  a  righteous  disposition " ;  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven  becomes  "  the  new  religious  constitution  "  ;  the 
high  priesthood  of  Christ  is  a  designation  of  the  "  highest 
official  of  God  in  the  moral  world  " ;  the  atonement  is  •'  the 
union  of  men  among  themselves  into  one  religion ; "  and  in 
general  the  "  Jewish-Greek  "  style  of  the  New  Testament  is 
translated  into  the  "  philosophical."  The  Wertheim  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible  (1735)  had  already  furnished  the  most  ex- 
treme exami'le  of  the  application  to  Scripture  of  this  bald,  and 
at  the  same  time  affected,  illumination.  It  is  evident  that,  with 
sucli  views  of  Scripture,  exegesis  could  not  thrive  ;  for  what 
interest  could  men  have  in  writings,  for  whose  specific  contents 
and  spirit  they  had  no  longer  any  understanding.  Yet  it 
would  be  a  great  injustice  to  make  Ernesti  and  Semler  respon- 
sible for  all  this. 

29.    Kant's  Kerrr.eneutical  Theory. 

Kant  grounded  his  herm.eneutical  theory  on  a  perception  of  Kant. 
the  difference    between    faith    in  revelation,    or    ecclesiastical 
t'i;:th,  and    rational    faith    (see    his    "  Religion    innerhalb  der 


58  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTIC9. 

Grenzeii  der  blossen  Vernunft,  ed.  Kirchmami,"*  pp.  129  £f.). 
In  as  far,  to  wit,  as  religion,  in  order  to  gain  general  recog- 
nition, needs  a  church,  and  this,  sacred  writings,  an  interpretation 
of  these  latter  is  necessary.  The  aim  of  this  interpretation 
must  be  on  the  one  hand  to  derive  from  the  Scriptures  the 
principles  of  pure  religion,  and  on  the  other  hand  to  inter- 
The  moral  pret  them  as  historical  writings.  The  former  is  the  moral  in- 
theoiogical  terpretation,  and  ministers  to  religion  ;  the  latter  is  the  theolo- 
tion!^^"^^  ^'  gical  interpretation,  and  ministers  to  the  church.  Kant  himself, 
expresses  his  view  with  regard  to  the  former,  as  follows : 
"  Even  although  a  writing  has  been  accepted  as  divine  revela- 
tion, the  highest  criterion  of  this  must  still  be,  'all  Scripture 
delivered  by  God,  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  correction,  for 
improvement,'  etc.,^  and  since  the  last,  viz.  the  moral  bettering 
of  man,  constitutes  the  proper  object  of  all  rational  religion ; 
this  latter  likewise  must  contain  the  supreme  principle  of  -all 
Scripture  interpretation.  This  religion  is  '  the  spirit  of  God 
that  leads  us  into  all  truth.'  But  this  spirit  is  one  which,  while 
it  teaches  us,  quickens  us  at  the  same  time  with  principles  for 
actions,  and  it  refers  whatever  the  Scriptures  may  still  contain 
for  historical  faith  entirely  to  the  regulation  and  the  guidance 
of  the  one  moral  faith,  which  alone  in  every  ecclesiastical  con- 
fession of  faith  constitutes  that  in  it  which  is  distinctively  reli- 
gion." The  consideration  that  such  an  interpretation  cannot 
lead  to  the  real  sense  of  Scripture,  Kant  obviates  by  the  asser- 
tion that  the  sense  thus  arrived  at  is  not,  indeed,  to  be  given  out 
as  that  had  in  mind  by  the  author,  and  that  such  an  interi3re- 
tation  of  their  sacred  books  has  been  practised  by  all  ancient 
Objections  peoples.  But  this  allegorical  interpretation  of  Scripture  pre- 
view, cisely  could  hardly  be  called  an  explanation  of  it,  and  if  it  be 
conceded  that  these  interpretations  do  not  correspond  to  the  orig- 
inal sense,  men  will  relinquish  in  advance  all  hope  of  arriving 

1  "  Religion  within  the  limits  of  mere  Reason." 

2  This  method  of  interpreting  2  Tim.  iii.  16  is,  perhaps,  the  correct  one, 
and  is  that  followed  in  the  Vulgate  and  the  Peshito  Syriac  versions  (the 
Gothic  accords  with  the  English  version).  —  Tr. 


HISTORY   OF   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  59 

at  a  true  explanation.  The  defect  of  this  hermenutical  theory 
consists  not  only  in  its  reduction  of  the  biblical  religion  to  mere 
morality,  but  more  still  in  the  setting  up  of  a  dualism  between 
the  moral  and  the  historical  sense,  which  a  genuine  exegesis 
removes  or  makes  superfluous/ 

30.   Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism. 

While  Rationalism,  in  more  decided  or  more  moderate  form, 
was  the  order  of  the  day,  there  were  not  wanting,  on  the 
other  hand,  efforts  to  retain  or  to  save,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
old  faith.  After  the  precedent  of  the  English  and  the  Dutch, 
the  German  apologists  had  also  sought  to  refute  the  arguments 
of  Deists,  Naturalists,  and  Rationalists,  and  to  oppose  a  dam 
to  the  stream  of  the  dominant  spirit  of  the  time.  Gradually 
there  arose  two  parallel  lines  of  religious  thought.  Rationalism  Eational- 
and  Supernaturalism.  The  former  disputed  the  necessity  and  s^rnat- 
the  cognizability  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  and  saw  the  "'■^"='°*- 
essence  of  religion  in  what  human  reason  can  grasp,  i.e. 
chiefly  in  morality.  The  Supernaturalists,  on  the  contrary, 
maintained  the  insufficiency  of  the  human  reason,  and  the 
necessity  of  a  supernatural  revelation.  To  the  Rationalistic 
school  belonged,  for  the  Old  Testament  especially  W.  Gesenius, 
and  for  the  New  Testament  in  particular  E.  Gottlob  Paulus, 
Fritzsche,  and  Dav.  Schulz.  Wilh.  Gesenius  (f  1842),  Pro- 
fessor at  Halle,  of  great  merit  as  a  Shemitic  scholar,  and  as  aji 
Old  Testament  exegete,  is  chiefly  celebrated  through  his  com- 
mentary on  Isaiah.2  In  the  highest  degree  meritorious  is  his 
exegesis,  in  a  linguistic  and  historical  point  of  view,  though  this 

1  Far  more  correot  than  that  of  Kant  is  the  hermeneutical  principle  of 
Spinoza  (see  his  "  Tract,  theol.-polit.  ch.  vii.),  who  ur<res  with  emphasis 
that  the  biblical  interpreter  should  observe  the  peculiarities  of  the  lan- 
gua:>:e  in  which,  and  the  nature  of  the  time  and  of  tlie  doctrine  for  which, 
The  book  under  discussion  was  written;  in  opposition  to  which  all  church 
authority  is  only  an  unsafe  jruide.  From  this  we  may  understand  how 
justly  the  "  Philosophia  Scriptura  S.  Intcrpres  "  of  L.  Meyer  the  Spinozist, 
has  been  attributed  to  Spinoza  himself. 

2  Gesenius  is  celebrated  far  more  as  grammarian  and  lexicographer  than 
as  exc;2:ete.  The  statement  in  the  text  was  probably  intended  to  refer  only 
to  his  work  as  exegete.  —  Tr, 


60 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OP   HERMENEUTICS. 


His  expla- 
nati()ii  of 
miracles. 


scholar  had  less  appreciation  for  the  religious  and  the  ideal. 

Panlus.  Eherh.  Gottl.  Pmilus  (t  1851),  Professor  at  Jena,  afterwards  at 
Heidelberg,  the  most  genuine  representative  of  Rationalism, 
gained  his  celebrity  chiefly  through  his  '•  Memorabilia,"  through 
his  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  and  through  his  '•  Commentary  on  the 
Synoptic  Gospels."  lie  himself  designates  his  exegetical 
method  as  the  "  psychologico-pragmatic."  In  the  most  out- 
spoken opposition  to  everything  mystical,  he  regarded  the 
essence  of  the  Cliristian  religion  as  "  practical  fidelity  to  reason." 
IltcrTis  was  to  him  "fidelity  to  conviction  ;"  this  fidelity  to  con- 
viction, together  with  the  spiritual  justification  represented  in 
Scripture  as  its  possible  result,  is  in  his  view  the  distinctive 
characteristic  of  Jesus.  His  explanation  of  miracles  has  be- 
come most  notorious  of  all.  In  considering  the  miracles  of 
Jesus  two  questions,  arise :  Whether  they  occurred,  and  if  so, 
how  what  has  indeed  occurred  may  possibly  have  occurred. 
Here  was  opened  a  wide  field  for  conjecture.  With  this  bar- 
ren, nay  frivolous,  conception  of  Scripture,  and  of  primitive 
Christianity,  the  exegesis  of  Paulus  has  yet  the  not  insignificant 
merit  of  an  accurate  real  ^  explanation ;  his  chronologicid 
researches  in  particular  are  of  considerable  value.  If  we 
would  estimate  the  good  fruits  that  have  accrued  to  exegesis 
from  the  bosom  of  Rationalism,  we  must  remember  the  endur- 
ing merits  of  G.  B.  Winer  and  K.  F.  Aug.  Fritzsche.  Gram- 
matical exegesis  even  in  the  first  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century  was  sadly  defective  ;  the  enallage  of  tenses,  of  cases 
and  of  the  particles  was  most  wretchedly  abused,  as  may  be  seen 
even  in  the  commentaries  of  such  men  as  Koppe,  Rosenmiil- 
ler,   Paulus    and   Kuinol.     The    celebrated    philologist   J.  G. 

ikrmann.  Hermann  appeared  with  his  writing  "  De  emendanda  ratione 
Graecae  gramraaticae,"  and  taught  his  pupils  to  consider  the 
Greek  language  as  a  historical  organism,  and  to  comprehend  it 
from  the  j)rinciples  of  human  thought.     To  the  inspired  dis- 

1  This  sli;.'lit!y  un-Ilnglisli  use  of  the  word  "real,"  has  been  retained 
thron^ihout  ihc  work  ior  lack  of  a  convenient  idiomatic  term.  "Real"  is 
opposed  to  ideal,  moral,  religious,  etc.,  and  is  used  to  denote  the  historical, 
geographical,  ethnological,  etc.  —  Tii. 


HISTORY   OF  SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  61 

ciples  of  Hermann  belonged  Georg  Benedict  Winer^  whose  Winer. 
*'  Grammatik  des  Neutestamentlichen  Sprachidioms "  ^  (first 
published  in  1822,  and  often),  has  become  a  classical  guide  for 
exegesis  ;  and  K.  F.  Atig.  Fritzsche  (f  1846)  Professor  first  Fritzsche 
at  Rostock  and  afterwards  at  Giessen,  whose  dissertations  ".  De 
nonnullis  posterioris  Pauli  ad  Corinthos  epistolae  locis,"  com- 
mentaries on  Matthew  (1826),  on  Mark  (1830),  on  Romans 
(1836-1843)  are  distinguished  in  a  text-critical  and  grammati- 
Ciil  point  of  view.  When  he  is  reproached  with  elevating 
grammar  above  all  other  sciences,  and  with  occupying  himself 
chiefly  with  particles  and  such  like  minutiae,  this  of  course  is 
true,  to  the  extent  that  the  reader  of  his  commentaries,  after 
having  struggled  through  the  wilderness  of  critical  and  gram- 
matical discussions,  seeks  in  vain  for  light  on  tlie  sense  of  the 
passages  under  consideration.  Yet  it  must  be  said  on  the 
other  hand;  1)  that  grammar  is,  and  must  always  remain  the 
foundation  of  all  exegesis ;  2)  tkat  truth  always  makes  its 
first  appearance  in  a  somewhat  distorted  form,  whenever  it  has 
to  force  an  ingress  in  the  face  of  error  ;  and  3)  that  this  one- 
sided character  is  in  his  last  principal  work  happily  overcome, 
and  that  in  this  ot  least  —  thanks  to  philological  precision  and 
conscientiousness  —  his  Rationalism  never  comes  to  the  surface. 
Dav.  Scliulz  (t  1854),  Professor  at  Brcslau.  as  a  decided  rep-  Schuiz. 
resentative  of  the  older  Rationalism,  has  allowed  this  tendency 
of  his,  more  than  Fi-itzsche,  to  influence  his  theological  activity. 
Among  his  exegetical  works  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  his  treatise  on  the  parable  of  the  Steward,  and 
that  "  Uebcr  die  Geistescrftben  der  ersten  Christen,  insbeson- 
dere  die  s.  g.  Gabe  der  Sprachen,"  ^  are  the  most  important, 
lie  rendered  a  service  also  through  his  enlarged  aud  improved 
edition  of  Griesbach's  New  Testament.  As  regards  his  theo- 
logical position,  he  found  his  calling  "■  in  battling  for  light  and 

1  Winer's  "  Grammar  of  the  Idiom  of  the  N.  T., "  has  been  frequently 
translated  into  En;;lish.  The  best  and  most  convenient  editions  are  those 
by  Professor  Thayer,  and  Mr.  Moulton.  —  Tr. 

-  '•  On  il-.e  Spiritual  Gifts  of  the  Early  Christians,  especially  the  so-called 
(iilt  of  Tc)!i..--ue.s." 


62 


GENERAL   PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 


Schulthess. 


The  older 
Tubingen 
school. 


Storr 


Followers 
of  Storr. 


right  and  truth,  and  this  to  the  end  that  day  might  henceforth 
dawn  in  the  evangelical  church."  Lastly,  we  must  not  pass 
over  the  most  noted  representative  of  the  older  Rationalism  in 
Switzerland,  Joh.  Schulthess  (1779-1836).  Although  his  exe- 
getical  performances  are  of  comparatively  trifling  importance, 
and  are  now  almost  forgotten,  yet  he  is  here  to  be  named  as 
one  who  considered  himself  the  genuine  forwarder  of  Zwingle's 
work  ;  grounding  his  theology  entirely  upon  the  Bible,  which 
he  could  only  do  by  means  of  an  empty  rationalistic  exegesis. 
Over  against  this  Rationalism,  dominant  throughout  several 
decades,  the  conservative  or  Supernaturalistic  biblical  students 
also  are  to  be  named  with  honor  ;  and  in  this  respect  it  is  the 
older  Tubingen  school  that  distinguished  itself  as  the  chief  rep- 
resentative of  the  latter  tendency,  about  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth,  and  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
Although  the  founder  of  this  school,  G.  Christ.  Storr  (f  1805), 
gained  his  reputation  more  in  Apologetics,  Dogmatics,  and 
Practical  Theology,  and  although  his  exegetical  treatises  are 
no  longer  much  read,  yet  through  his  arguing  for  the  truth  and 
the  divinity  of  Christianity  he  became  so  truly  a  sign  of  his 
time  and  direction,  in  that  he  —  in  opposition  to  the  old  and 
genuine  Orthodoxy  which  discriminated  between  the  fides 
human  a  and  the  fides  divina  in  Scripture,  and  which  regarded 
the  testimonium  Spiritus  S.  as  the  true  and  only  ground  of  the 
latter  —  held  this  proof  to  be  insufficient,  and  based  faith  in 
the  divinity  of  Scripture  on  miracles  ;  but  the  reality  of  mir- 
acles on  the  trustworthiness  and  genuineness  of  the  documents 
in  which  they  arc  narrated,  —  proof  which,  according  to  the 
old  Orthodoxy,  would  serve  as  the  foundation  of  only  a  fides 
humana.  In  Storr's  footsteps  followed  Gottl.  Silskind,  Joh. 
Friedr.  and  Karl  Christian  Flatty  important  rather  through 
their  apologetical  activity,  directed  against  the  philosophy  of 
Fichte  and  Schelling,  and  finally  against  Schleiermacher  also, 
than  through  their  exegetical  performances.  The  last  famous 
representative  of  this  school,  and  more  important  for  biblical 
Btudy  than  either  of  those  just  mentioned,  is  /.  Christ,  Friedr, 


HISTORY  OP  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  63 

Steudel  (f  1857).  As  practical  e^egeie^  indeed,  sharing  the  steudel. 
defects  of  the  school  of  Storr,  he  has  the  merit,  through  such 
special  hermeneutical  investigations  as  those  "  Ueber  die  Be- 
handlung  der  Sprache  der  heil.  Schrift  als  einer  Sprache  des 
Geistes,"  —  "  Ueber  tiefern  Scriftsiun,"  —  and  "  Ueber  die 
Auslegang  der  Propheteu,"  ^  of  having  promoted  biblical  study, 
and  of  having  maintained,  against  the  transcendentalism  of 
Olshausen  and  Hengstenberg,  the  right  of  the  grammatico- 
historical  interpretation.  One  of  the  most  excellent  exegetes 
of  this  school  was  Georg  Christ.  Knapp  (t  1825),  Professor  Knapp. 
at  Halle.  Among  his  "  Scripta  varii  argument!,  maximam' 
partem  exegetici "  (first  published  in  1805)  are  to  be  found 
exegetico-theological  treatises  of  lasting  worth.  The  following 
are  the  most  important :  De  Spiritu  Sancto  et  Christo  Para- 
cletis ;  Commentatio  in  colloquium  Christi  cum  Nicodemo ; 
Exercitatio  in  locum  de  novo  praecepto  Christi ;  Prolusio  in  lo- 
cum epistolae  ad'Romanos,?,  21  sq. ;  De  dispari  formula  docendi 
. . .  de  fide  et  factis.  If  hitherto  we  have  considered  exegesis 
under  the  influence  of  the  antagonism  between  Rationalism 
and  Supernaturalism,  we  have,  entirely  passed  over  the  influ- 
ence which  the  relisrious  awakenins:  of  1813  if.  had  upon  bib-  Thereli- 

»  ="  ^  gious  awak- 

lical  study.  Although  the  men  whom  we  have  considered  ening  of 
were  active,  in  great  part,  in  a  time  chronologically  far  pos- 
terior to  this  epoch ;  yet  they  were  rooted  as  regards  their  spirit 
and  their  theological  tendency  in  the  impulses  of  the  eighteenth 
century  —  the  Rationalists  indeed,  as  well  as  the  Supernatural- 
ists  ;  the  Rationalists  in  as  far  as  their  conception  of  the  world 
was  rooted  partly  in  Subjectivism  and  partly  in  Empiricism,  and 
their  view  of  Scripture  and  their  treatment  of  Scripture  was 
thoroughly  permeated  with  Criticism  and  Humanism;  the 
Supernaturalists,  in  as  far  as  they  were  affected  more  than 
they  knew  by  the  Empiricism  and  the  Subjectivism  of  the 
time  ;  having  abandoned  in  their  treatment  of  Scripture  the  old 

1  "  On  the  Treatment  of  the  Language  of  Scripture  as  a  Language  of  the 
Spirit,"—"  On  the  Deeper  Sense  of  Scripture,"  and  "  On  the  Interpretation 
of  the  Prophets." 


64 


GENERAL   PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 


AnotJor 

jx.int  of 

nvtilinn 

l),>l\ve<*n 

l.a-.ir.nal- 

i  !.!  and 

S'Mipr'iatu- 


I'ositivp 
l)rogress. 


T!»e  Poets. 


Ilrrder. 


Orthodox  principle,  and  yet  in  all  their  battles  with  Rational- 
ism and  Criticism  not  being  able  entirely  to  resist  the  element.'j 
of  truth  contained  therein.  But  in  still  another  point  of  viev7 
Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism  were  more  nearly  related  than 
their  representatives  believed  ;  viz.  they  both  rested  on  the  in- 
scrutability of  religion,  as  the  only  root  of  action  as  of  knowl- 
edge, the  Rationalists  laying  stress  on  the  acting,  without  refer- 
ence to  its  principle  ;  and  the  Supernaturalists,  in  turn,  on  the 
knowing^  w^ithout  reference  to  its  source.  Since,  now,  the  spirit 
of  the  Bible  lies  in  precisely  this  simple  principle,  the  considera- 
tion and  treatment  of  the  Bible  could  not  but  be  one-sided  and 
defective,  as  is  illustrated  most  clearly,  on  the  one  side,  in 
Paulus  ;.  on  the  other,  in  Storr.  In  this  unconscious  agree- 
ment in  a  defective  principle  lay  also  the  impossibility  of 
mutual  understanding  as  well  as  of  substantial  progress. 

31.   A  Truer  Stand-point  Reached. 

It  lies  in  the  nature  of  historical  development  that  upon  the 
dominant  negation  something  positive  must  follow,  and  upon 
the  domination  of  empty  intelligence  the  reaction  of  a  spirited 
and  heartfelt  tendency.  Various  circumstances  prepared  the. 
way  for  this  revolution  ;  other  circumstances  gave  the  immediate 
impulse.  First  of  all,  it  was  the  appearing  of  the  great  Ger- 
man poets  and  their  praiseworthy  works,  that  awakened  and 
disseminated  the  sense  for  the  beautiful,  the  ideal,  the  purely 
human.  Influenced  in  part  by  this  awakening,  and  himself  in 
part  co-operating  {x>werfully  w^ith  it,  J.  G.  v.  Herder  (1744- 
1803)  became  a  great  source  of  influence,  as  for  German  liter- 
ature and  culture  in  general,  so  in  particular  for  a  more  lively 
conception  and  treatment  of  the  Bible.  Fundamentally  op- 
posed to  all  dogmatism  and  scholasticism,  borne  along  by  the 
idea  of  "  Humanity,"  he  looked  at  the  biblical  writings  also 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  beautiful  and  the  purely  human. 
In  this  interest  he  wrote  his  treatise  "  Die  Ul teste  Urkunde  des 
Menschengeschlechts,"  in  his  ''  Lieder  der  Liebe,"  he  treats 
the  Song  of  Solomon,  otherwise  always  explained  allegorical ly, 
and   vividly   and    brilliantly    docs   he    tlirow  light  ujwn  "  Der 


HISTORY   OP   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  65 

Geist  der  hebriiiscben  Poesie."  He  sougbt  also  to  revive  tbe 
study  of  tbe  New  Testament  tbrough  bis  "  ErlauteruDgen 
zum  N.  T.  aus  einer  neu  eroffneten  morgenlandiscben  Quelle," 
tbougb  bis  writing  on  tbe  Epistles  of  tbe  two  brotbers  of  Jesus 
(James  and  Jude)  and  especially  tbrougb  bis  "  Mapav  aOa,  oder 
das  Bucb  von  der  Zukunf t  des  Herrn."  ^  From  Herder  pro- 
ceeded tbe  aestbetic  treatment  of  Scripture,  and  tbougb  bis 
works  in  tbis  department  are  more  brilliant  tban  tborougb, 
more  inspiring  tban  exbaustive,  yet  be  must  be  designated  as 
tbe  forerunner  of  tbe  more  recent  tbeology.  Anotber  pre- 
paratory symptom  was  tbe  cbange  wrougbt  in  German  pbilos-  The  Ger- 
opby  tbrougb  Ficbte,  Jacobi,  Scbelling,  Hegel ;  and  indeed,  ophers. 
tbe  vibration  from  absolute  Idealism  and  Subjectivism  to  ideal 
Realism  was  already  consummated  even  in  Ficbte.  Tbis 
cbange  ministered  essentially  to  a  fundamental  and  living  com- 
prebension  of  religion,  as  was  realized  in  Scbelling's  "  Religion 
and  Pbilosopby,"  in  Daub's  "  Tbeologoumena,"  but  altogetber 
pre-eminently  in  Scbleiermacber.  But  more  tban  all  else  did  The  war  of 
tbe  years  of  war  and  tbe  inspiration  of  tbe  war  of  liberty 
(1813  ff.)  contribute  to  tbe  awakening  of  religious  earnestness, 
and  faitb.     Tbe  newly-awakened  religious  need  could  develop  Jy^*^  possi- 

.         .  ....  bihties. 

itself  and  seek  to  bring  itself  to  recognition  in  eitber  of  two 
directions.  On  tbe  one  band,  enricbed  witb  tbe  inberitance  of 
tbe  elements  of  culture  and  tbe  acquisitions  of  tbe  time  just 
past,  rejecting  only  tbe  unscientific  and  tbe  irreligious  barren 
intelligence,  it  could  come  forward  as  a  new  fructifying  ele- 
ment ;  on  tbe  ctber  band,  rejecting  tbe  entire  period  of  illumi- 
nation as  apostasy  from  tbe  faitb  and  united  witb  tbe  remnants 
of  Pietism,  it  could  seek  to  restore  tbe  stand-point  of  tbe 
seventeentb  century.  We  must  speak  first  of  tbe  former  direc- 
tion, and  its  influence  on   execjesis,     Friedr.  Schleiermacher  Schieier- 

'  °  macner. 

(1768-1834),  as  Corypbaeus. stands  naturally  at  tbe  bead.    He 

1  "  The  most  ancient  record  of  the  human  race,"  —  "  Songs  of  Love," — 
"Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,"  — "Illustrations  of  the  N.  T.  from  a  newly 
opened  Oriental  Source,"  — "'  yiapav  aOd,  or  tbe  Book  of  the  Advent  of  th© 
Lord." 

6* 


.  66  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OP  fiERMENEUTICS. 

accomplished  little,  indeed,  in  practical  Scripture  interpretation ; 
his  mistaking  of  the  importance  of  the  Old  Testament  is  uni- 
versally recognized  as  an  essential  defect  of  his  theology.    But 

His  "  Her-   jjig  "  Hermeneutics,"  published  after  his  death  by  Liicke  is  rich 
meneutics."  '    *■  -' 

in  profound  and  brilliant  thoughts.  He  was  the  first  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  New  Testament  language,  side  by 
side  with  the  Hellenistic  basis  and  the  Hebrew- Aramaic  elements, 
contains  a  new  specifically  Christian  element.  He  established 
fundamentally  and  vigorously  the  boundaries  between  the  dog- 
matic and  the  philosophical  explanations,  and  threw  light  on 
the  vexed  question  —  in  how  far  the  Scriptures,  and  especially 
the  New  Testament,  are  to  be  treated  as  an  organic  whole  or 
as  a  midtiplicity  of  independent  writings.  Already,  during  his 
life-time  he  inspired  and  furthered  source-criticism  in  particu- 
lar, through  his  pioneering  investigations  on  the  writings  of 
Luke,  and  on  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy.  In  general,  there 
proceeded  from  Schleiermacher  an  impulse  that  could  not  fail 
to  exert  an  important  influence  on  Scripture  interpretation. 

Lucke.  We  must  speak  next  of  F.  Liicke  (1791-1855),  who  labored 
first  in  Berlin,  then  at  Bonn,  and  from  1828  at  Gottingen. 
The  first  edition  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John, 
which  suffered  yet  from  a  certain  mystical  and  passionate  one- 
sidedn6ss,  was  followed  by  a  second  and  a  third  edition.  In 
his  youthful  production,  "  Die  Hermeneutik  und  ihre  Ges- 
chichte,"  ^  he  set  forth  his  entire  and  full  conviction  with  refer- 

His  view  of  ence  to  the  relation  of  theology  to  Scripture.     He  condemns  the 

the  inter-        .  ,        ,,     .  .     ""^     »     ,       .    ,  ,  ,,  . 

preters  view  that  Scripture  requires  of  the  interpreter  nothing  more 
than  any  other  ancient  writing;  he  requires  of  the  interpreter, 
before  everything  else,  love  for  the  one  word  of  God.  To 
seek  and  to  find  this  in  Scripture  he  holds  to  be  the  work  of 
the  exegete.  Notwithstanding  this  he  would  relinquish  nothing 
of  the  fundamental  conditions  of  all  exegesis,  viz.  the  discovery 
of  the  grammatical  and  the  historical  sense  and  character  of 
the  writing  and  of  its  individual  parts.  This  he  proved  in  his 
elaborate  introduction  to  the  Apocalypse.  Among  those  ex- 
1  Hemienentlcs  and  its  History. 


HISTORY   OP  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  67 

egetes  who  stand  under  the  influence  of  the  new  believing 
spirit,  and  who  seek  to  further  the  same,  Aug.  TJioluch,  of  Tholuck. 
Halle,  must  be  mentioned.  Through  his  Commentaries'  on 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  on  the  G6spel  of  John,  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he 
has  gained  for  himself  a  name  among  Scripture  interpreters. 
Meritorious  in  this  relation  is  his  fruitful  use  of  the  Fathers, 
as  well  as  his  liberal  position  with  reference  to  inspiration  —  a 
position  which,  however,  he  has  not  held  consistently.  On  the 
other  hand,  his  exegesis  leaves  much  to  be  desired  in  gram- . 
matical  accuracy.  Friedr.  Bleeh  on  the  contrary  (1793-1859),  Bleek. 
first  at  Berlin,  from  1829  onward  at  Bonn,  made  his  appear- 
ance furnished  with  all  the  acquisitions  of  the  earlier  and 
the  more  recent  time.  After  having  published  in  1828  his 
elaborate  Introduction  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he 
brought  out  his  Commentary  on  this  Epistle  (1836-1840), 
which  in  grammatical  and  critical  accuracy  and  circumspection, 
in  correct  and  profound  insight  into  the  course  of  thought,  and 
in  the  theological  estimate  of  the  religious  contents  of  this 
Epistle,  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired.  Of  his  valuable  biblical 
treatises  that  appeared  in  the  "  Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken  " 
we  may  here  mention  that  on  the  yA-wcro-at?  \a\eiv,  observations 
on  the  dogmatic  use  of  O.  T.  expressions  in  the  N.  T.,  on  the 
age  of  Zechariah  ix.-xiv.,  on  the  position  of  the  O.  T.  Apocry- 
pha in  the  Christian  Canon,  on  the  Messianic  prophecies  in  the 
Book  of  Daniel.  His  '•  Beitrage  zur  Evangelienkritik"^  (1846) 
are  very  excellent.  From  his  literary  remains,  Kampfhausen 
and  J.  F.  Bleek  have  prepared :  "  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.," 
"  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.,"  "  Synopt.  Erkliirung  der  drei  ersten 
Evangelien,"^  ed.  Holtzmann,  and  his  Lectures  on  the  Apoca- 
lypse.^ With  Bleek  we  may  class  W.  M.  L.  de  Wette  (1780-1849),  DeWette. 

1  "  Contributions  to  the  Criticism  of  the  Gospels." 

2  "  Introduction  to  the  Old  Test.,"  —  "  Introduction  to  the  New  Test.,  — 
"  Synoptic  Explanation  of  the  first  three  Gospels."  The  first  two  have 
been  published  in  English.  So  also  have  Tholuck's  works  and  De  \Vette*s 
Introductions,  above  named. 

«  A  greatly  enlarged  edition  of  Bleek's  Introductions,  edited  by  Mangold, 


68  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

University  teacher  first  in  Heidelberg,  then  in  Berlin,  and  from 
1822  onward  in  Basel.  After  the  publication  of  his  somewhat 
prosy  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  he  gained  an  imperishable 
name  as  a  critic  and  exegete,  chiefly  through  his  "  Historico-criti- 
cal  Introduction  to  the  Canonical  and  Apocryphal  Books  of  the 
O.  T."  (first  published  in  1817),  through  his  *•  Introduction  to 
the  N.  T.,"  and  through  his  "  Concise  exegetical  Hand-book  to 
the  N.  T."  (1836-1848,  recently  edited  by  Bruckner).  Though 
a  friend  of  Schleiermacher,  he  had  yet  imbibed  more  of  the 
spirit  of  Herder,  in  as  far  as  he  viewed  religion  and  its  records 
rather  from  the  aesthetic  side,  but  he  surpassed  Herder  by 
far  in  scientific  rigor  and  thoroughness.  Bold  as  a  critic,  he 
became  later  in  life  always  more  and  more  circumspect.  On 
the  appearance  of  Strauss's  "Life  of  Jesus,"  he  explained  him- 
self in  such  a  way  as  to  give  the  preference  to  the  mystical 
explanation  of  miracles  over  the  so-called  natural  explanation, 
but  he  attached  a  far  greater  importance  to  the  historical  per- 
sonality of  Jesus  than  did  Strauss.  In  the  preface  to  his 
Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse,  finally,  he  made  the  following 
His  confes-  confession  :  "  Whatever  may  be  the  fate  of  our  Protestant 
'  church,  I  know  that  in  no  other  name  is  salvation  than  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  the  crucified."  As  the  organ  of  these 
strivings,  inspired  chiefly  by  Schleiermacher,  the  "  Theol. 
Studien  und  Kritiken,"  founded  by  Schleiermacher,  DeWette, 
and  Liicke,  has  contained  many  valuable  articles,  both  in  an 
exegetical  and  in  a  biblico-theological  point  of  view.  By  the 
side  of  DeWette's  Hand-book  stands  worthily  the  Commentary 
Meyer.  of  Heinrich  August  Wilhelm  Meyer ^  (begun  in  1829  and  con- 
was  ])ubljshe(l  at  Berlin  in  1875.  His  Lectures  on  Ephesians,  Philippians, 
and  Colossians,  edited  by  Nitzsch,  appeared  in  1865. 

1  The  critical  and  exegetical  -works  of  Me.yer  are,  1 )  A  critically  revised 
Greek  text  with  a  German  translation  (1829),  never  carried  beyond  the 
first  edition,  and  now  almost  forgotten.  It  is  now  of  scarcely  any  value,  so 
great  has  been  the  advance  in  this  department  of  theological  science.  2) 
Commentaries,  including  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Most 
of  these  reached  the  fourth,  some  of  them  the  fifth,  and  one  of  them  (on 
Matthew)  the  sixth,edition.  On  Meyer  and  his  works,  compare  Art  by 
Mr.  H.  S.  liurrage,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January  1S75,  and  Art.  by 


HISTORY  OP   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  69 

tinued  in  new  editions,  and  with  the  assistance  of  Lunemann, 
Huther,  and  Diisterdieck,  till  his  death  in  1873),  through  gram- 
matical accuracy,  through  a,  for  the  most  part,  excellent  con- 
ception of  the  sense  and  connection,  through  discreet  use  of 
materials,  a  work  in  the  highest  degree  useful,  nay  indispensable. 
Finally.  Sam.  Lutz  (1785-1844),  Professor  at  Bern,  takes  an  Lutz. 
honorable  position  in  this  category  of  exegetes.  He  published 
indeed,  no  exegetical  work,  and  is,  therefore,  little  known  in 
wider  circles  ;  but  as  academic  teacher,  through  his  philological 
accuracy,  through  his  never  wearying  —  rather  always  in  the 
highest  degree  inspiring  —  exegetical  dialectics,  through  his 
profound  comprehension  of  the  biblical  spirit  in  the  individual 
parts  and  in  the  whole,  he  made  a  lasting  impression  upon  his 
hearers.  From  his  literary  remains  Ad.  Lutz  edited  his 
'•  Ilermeneutics "  and  R.  Ruetschi  his  "  Biblical  Dogmatics " 
(1847).  If  we  would  state  succinctly  the  fundamental  char- charactor- 
acteristic  of  this  class  of  exegetes,  especially  in  its  relation  to  class  of  ex- 
that  of  the  preceding  epoch,  we  might  say  :  that  it  consists  in  ^^^  ^^' 
the  fact  that,  in  a  general  theological  point  of  view,  it  does 
not  mediate  between  Rationalism  and  Supernaturalism,  but 
stands,  and  desires  to  stand,  above  them  both  as  a  mediation  of 
faith  and  knowledge ;  and  that,  in  its  relation  to  Scripture 
interpretation  in  particular,  it  consists  in  its  free  appropriation 
of,  nay  its  improvement  upon,  the  philological  helps  and  ac- 
quisitions of  the  preceding  period,  regarding  as  it  did  the  work 
of  interpretation  as  incomplete  so  long  as  the  religious  sense 
and  spirit  of  the  biblical  author  has  not  also  been  ascertained. 
In  relation  to  the  New  Testament  this  has  been  done  especially 
by  Liicke,  Tholuck,  Bleek,  DeTVette,  and  Lutz. 

This  may  be  the  most  proper  place  to  mention  the  services 
which  Griesbach,  Matthdi,  Scholz,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf 
have  rendered  to  Textual  Criticism}    Griesbach,  in  his  critical  Critics. 

the  translator  in  the  Baptist  Quarterly  for  October  1874,  republished  in 
Dickinson's  Theolojrical  Quarterly  (London)  for  January  1875.      These 
Commentaries  are  now  in  course  of  translation  and  publication  in  English. 
by  Messrs.  T.  and  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh.  —  Tr. 
^  It  will  be  noticedv-that  our  author  here,  as  throughout  this  section, 


70  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 

edition  of  the  New  Testament  1796  (new  edition  of  the  first 
part  by  D.  Schulz  1827),  not  only  collected  a  richer  critical 
apparatus  than  his  predecessors,  but  also  set  forth  the  correct 
principles  of  criticism.  An  entirely  new  system  was  introduced 
by  Lachmann.  While  even  Griesbach,  making  the  Textus 
Receptus  his  basis,  only  received  into  his  text  variations  to  be 
accepted  on  external  and  internal  grounds,  Lachmann  sought 
to  restore  the  oldest  possible  text,  namely,  that  of  the  fourth 
century,  which  then  might  serve  as  a  firm  foundation  for  crit- 
ical operations.  This  procedure  met  with  much  opposition,  in- 
asmuch as  Lachmann,  aiming  to  give  the  Oriental  text,  and 
giving  weight  to  the  Occidental  testimonies  only  where  the 
Oriental  differ  (as  often),  did  not,  in  consequence,  altogether 
exclude  arbitrariness.  The  greatest  service  for  Textual  Crit- 
icism has  been  rendered  by  Constantine  Tischendorf  (11874), 
as  well  through  his  enriched  and  verified  critical  apparatus  as 

quietly  i,27iores  what  has  been  done  in  recent  times  towards  the  promotion 
of  biblical  science  outside  of  the  Continent  of  Europe.  He  does  not  think 
it  worth  his  while  to  mention  the  brilliant  and  considerate  efforts  of  Tre- 
gelles  in  Textual  Criticism,  the  less  brilliant,  the  too  conservative,  but  yet 
extremely  careful,  and  hence  very  useful,  work  of  Scrivener,  and  the  pro- 
gressing labors  of  Westcott  and  Hort,  which  last  seem  destined  to  result 
in  by  far  the  best  and  most  correct  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  -  as 
correct,  perhaps,  as  in  the  present  state  of  science  it  is  possible  to  attain 
to.  We  may  here  mention  the  fact  that  Tregelles  is  the  father  of  a  great 
school  in  Textual  Criticism,  which  is  constant!}'  gaining  ground  in  Europe 
and  in  America;  and  that  Westcott  and  Hort  belong  to  this  school  Com- 
pare on  Tischendorf  an  elaborate  Article  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  Jan- 
uary 1876,  by  3/r.  C.  R.  Gregory,  an  Article  in  the  Unitarian  Review  for 
March  1875,  by  Prof.  Ezra  Abbot,  and  an  excellent  Article,  unhappily 
published  only  in  a  weekly  paper,  and  hence  not  very  generally  read,  I)y 
Prof.  John  A.  Broadns.  A  good  popular  exhil)ition  of  the  Textual  Crit- 
icism of  the  Tregellesian  school  is  to  be  found  in  the  little  work  of  Ham- 
mond, "Textual  Criticism  applied  to  the  New  Testament;"  and  in  the 
Article  of  Dr.  Gardiner  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  1875,  since  published 
in  book  form.  See  also  an  Article  on  Tregelles,  in  the  New  York  Inde- 
pendent for  July  1, 1875,  by  Prof.  Ezra  Abbot ;  and  an  interesting  Article 
by  Milligan,  in  the  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Keview  for  January 
1876:  "Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  as  Editors  of  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment." Among  the  ablest  Text-Critics  in  America  —  and  they  compare 
very  favorably  with  the  English  Critics  mentioned  above  — arc  Prof.  Ezra 
Abbot,  Prof.  John  A.  Broadus,  Prof.  J.  H.  Thayer,  and  Ex-President 
Woohey  —  Tr. 


fflSTORY  OP   SCEIIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  71 

tlirough  his  numerous  editions  of  the  New  Testament  (among 
which  we  may  call  special  attention  to  the  Editio  VIII.  critica 
major,  etc.^)  ;  as  well  as  also  through  his  editions  of  single 
important  manuscripts,  especially  of  the  Sinaitic.  The  prin- 
ciples of  Textual  Criticism  also  were  still  more  accurately 
determined  by  Tischendorf  than  by  Griesbach. 

32.    A  Revival  of  Orthodoxy. 

But  the  religious  awakening  which  followed  upon  the 
German  war  of  liberty  took  still  another  form.  Side  by  side 
with  the  philosophizing,  brilliant  theology  of  Schleiermacher 
and  Hegel,  there  existed  still  a  popular  realistic,  religious  need^  The  popular 

=>     '  ^   ^  ^         o  religious 

which  was  attracted  and  satisfied  far  more  by  the  fresh  and  need, 
vehement  manner  of  a  Luther.  The  purest  and  freshest 
representative  of  this  tendency  was  Klaus  Harms,  who  at  the  Klaus 
Reformation  festival  1817,  as  a  second  Luther,  in  his  ninety- 
five  theses,  threw  down  the  gauntlet  to  Rationalism.  Men 
looked  with  longing  for  the  old  unbroken  faith  and  its  symbols. 
Hand  in  hand  with  this  popular  need  went  a  politico-ecclesias- 
tical restoration   and  a  theoloory  which  reijarded   the  whole  The  restora- 

^'^  °  tioa-theol- 

scientific  development  of  the  eighteenth  century  as  apostasy  ogy. 
and  looked  for  the  salvation  of  the  world  only  in  the  greatest 
possible  renewing  of  the  old  faith  in  the  Bible  and  the  creed. 
The  great  leader  of  this  apologetico-polemic  restoration-theol- 
ogy was  W.  Hengstenherg,  from  1826  Professor  at  Berlin,  and  Hengsten- 
from  1827  editor  of  "Die  Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung."  One- 
sided as  his  theology  must  be  called,  however  much  impurity^ 
attaches  to  this  name,  yet  as  a  biblical  investigator  he  has  an 

1  Unfortunately  Tischendorf  died  before  preparing?  Prolegomena  to  the 
eighth  critical  edition.  The  Prolegomena  to  the  seventh  edition  have  to  do 
service,  albeit  very  imperfectly,  also  for  the  eighth.  Mr.  Gregory  states  in 
the  Article  referred  to  above,  doubtless  on  good  authority,  that  the  work 
of  preparing  Prolegomena  to  the  eighth  critical  edition  from  Tischendorf 's 
materials  has  been  intrusted  to  a  Dr.  Gebhardt.  We  unite  with  Mr.  Greg- 
ory in  the  hope  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  do  a  thorough  piece  of  work, 
worthy  of  Tischendorf  himself.  Mr.  Gregory  gives  what  seems  to  be  a 
well-nigh  complete  exhibit  of  Tischendorf 's  published  works.  — Tr. 

2  Glaubeusbediirfuiss. 

3  Moral  impurity  is,  of  coarse,  not  intended.  —  Tb^ 


72  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 

indisputable  merit.  His  "  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament." 
—  returnins:  in  the  first  edition  to  the  Old  Protesfeant  view  of 
prophecy,  but  admitting  in  the  later  editions  essentially  modern 
ideas  —  made  an  ejjoch,  in  that  it  brought  to  the  consciousness, 
in  its  importance  and  eternal  truth,  the  prophetical  contents  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Here,  indeed,  as  well  as  in  his  "  Contri- 
butions to  the  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,"  he  strives 
to  repudiate  as  much  as  possible  the  results  of  historico-critical 
inquiry  as  "  Rationalism,"  and  to  save,  e.g.  the  genuineness  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel  and  of  the  second  part  of  Zechariah,  as 
well  as  to  obliterate  and  remove  the  incongruity  between  the 
Old  Testament  citations  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  gen- 
uine sense  of  these  passages.  For  this  work  a  rich  arsenal  of 
modern  learning  stood  at  his  command.  His  theology  has, 
therefore,  justly  been  called  "  repristination  theology."  The 
correctness  of  this  designation  rests  chiefly  upon  Hengsten- 
berg's  fundamental  pre-supposition  of  the  essential  identity  of 
the  contents  of  Scripture  with  the  contents  of  the  confessional 
writings  and  the.  doctrines  of  the  church.  In  the  same  path 
Keii,  Hiiy-  walked  his  pupils  /ve^7,  Huvcrnih^  and  W.  Steiger.  Here  also 
or,andTho-  wc  must  not  forget  Tholuck^  who  through  Pietism  is  connected 
with  the  "  Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,"  but  through  his 
free-thinking  with  Schleiermacher  and  Neander.  The  Appen- 
dix to  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "  The 
Old  Testament  in  the  New,"  is  more  nearly  related  to  the 
former.  In  still  another  than  the  Orthodox  way  the  newly 
awakened  religious  need  also  manifested  itself  in  theology,  viz. 
tLp  mysii-  ^s  mystical  theology  and  Scripture  interpretation.  Here  are 
oishausen.  Olshauscn  and  Stier  to  be  mentioned.  Hermann  Olshauscn 
(1766-1830),  Professor  at  Kiinigsberg,  and  afterwards  at 
Erlangen,  through  his  two  writings  on  "  The  Deeper  vSense  of 
Scripture,"  and  through  his  '•  Commentary  on  all  the  Writings 
of  the  New  Testament,"  ^  exerted  a  very  wide  influence.  He 
wished  to  emancipate  Scripture  study  from  the  shackles  as  well 

1  The  best  En  .;lish  edition  of  Olshausen's  Commentary  is  that  edited  by 
Dr.  A.  C.  Kcndrick.  —  Tr. 


HISTORY   OF   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  73 

of  the  dogmatic  as  of  the  grammatical  interpretation,  and  to 
bring  to  recognition  the  divine  revelation  in  Scripture  and  its 
central  point  Christ,  in  their  living  unity  with  God  as  well  as 
with  humanity.  Olshausen  was  in  so-  far  opposed  to  the  ordi- 
nary Supernatucalism  as  he  found  the  mystery  of  the  Scripture 
revelation  paralleled  by  the  mystery  of  the  spiritual  corporeal 
nature  of  man.  True  religious  life  was  to  him,  therefore,  the 
condition  of  a  correct  understanding  of  Scripture.  Kindred, 
and  yet  different,  is  the  theological  character  oi  JRudoIf  Stier  Stier, 
(1800-1862).  A  romantically  adjusted  nature,  but  led,  partly 
through  the  religious  feature  of  the  time,  partly  through  inner 
experiences,  to  a  decisive  faith  in  Christ,  satisfied  with  neither 
Neftnder  nor  Liicke,  he  labored  principally  as  a  practical  cler- 
gyman. But  as  a  thoroughly  biblical  theologian,  he  has  devel- 
oped, even  in  an  exegetical  relation,  a  fruitful  and  inspiring 
activity,  principally  through  his  "  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  ^ 
Besides  this,  he  has  done  important  service  through  his  revision 
of  Luther's  translation  of  the  Bible.  His  Scripture  interpre- 
tation may  be  characterized  as  the  dogmatico-mystical.  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  to  him  so  much  the  auctor  primarius  of  Scrip- 
ture, that  the  human  author  recedes  entirely  into  the  back- 
ground. Yet  he  does  not  return  to  the  old  Orthodox  doctrine 
of  inspiration,  since  not  in  the  letters  but  in  the  contents  of 
Scripture  does  the  Holy  Spirit  bear  witness.  The  principal 
defect  of  his  Scripture  interpretation  is  the  lack  of  sharpness 
of  conception,  a  result  of  the  deficiency  of  his  scientific  prepar- 
atory education. 

33.   The  Critical-Speculative  Tendency. 

Yet  Side  by  side  with  the  specifically  religious  and  the  mani- 
fold mystical-pietistic  direction,  which  dominated  in  theology 
from  the  third  decade  of  the  present  century,  is  still  another 
element  not  to  be  overlooked,  which  for  a  long  time  maintained 
dominion  in  theology  ;  it  is  the  critical-speculative.  .  The  emi- 
nent philosophical  activity,  which  having  had  in  Kant  its  great  ca"activit7 

1  This  work  is  accessible  in  a  reasonably  good  translation,  and,  though 
frequently  wild  in  its  "spiritualizing,"  is  always -worth  consul  ting.  —  Tb. 
7 


74 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OP  HERMENEUTICS. 


Strauss's 
Life  of 
Jesus. 


Tubingen 
school. 


Baur. 


inaugurator,  in  Fichtp  and  Schelling,  to  some  extent  also  in 
Schleiermacher,  its  promoters,  had  found  in  Hegel  its  final 
shaping.  Especially  was  it  this  thinker's  logical  construction 
of  history,  from  which  proceeded  an  important  inspiration. 
The  influence  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy  was  first  of  all  a 
restraining  influence,  promotive  rather  of  Orthodoxy,  as  was  to 
be  seen  in  Daub  and  Marheineke.  The  oneness  of  faith  and 
science  was  the  pre-supposition  of  this  school,  and  their  oppo- 
sition was  regarded  as  a  vanquished  stand-point.  As  long  as 
Hegel  lived,  the  question  among  his  disciples  was  only  who 
among  them  had  most  correctly  understood  their  master.  After 
his  death,  however,  emancipated  from  this  authority,  they  fixed 
their  attention  on  the  consequences  only  of  the  system.  The 
Hegelian  pre-supposition,  that  the  idea  is  developed  only  in 
humanity  and  not  in  one  individual,  entered  in  Strauss'  "  Life 
of  Jesus  "  as  a  revolutionary  elemeri^:  into  the  theological  world. 
The  novelty  of  this  work  consisted  not  in  the  fact  that  legends 
and  myths  were  admitted  in  the  Gospel  history;  but  in  the 
fact  that  this  view  was  carried  out  and  expressed  with  the  most 
reckless  consistency.  Strauss  exhibited  excellently  the  insuf- 
ficiency and  the  defectiveness  of  the  supernaturalistic,  as  well 
as  of  the  so-called  natural  explanation  of  miracles,  and  pro- 
pounded, as  the  only  admissible  explanation,  the  mythical.  In 
general,  from  this  time  forward  the  so-called  Baurian  or 
Tubingen  school  permeated  by  the  Hegelian  spirit,  was  the 
supporter  of  the  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures.  Ferdinand 
Christian  Baur  (1792-1860),  the  head  of  this  school,  had 
earlier  applied  himself  far  more  to  the  most  fundamental  in- 
vestigations in  the  history  of  doctrines  than  to  biblical  study.^ 
In  this  direction  he  had  already  deyeloped  an  epoch-making 
literary  activity,  when  through  the  controversy  occasioned  by 
Strauss'  "  Life  of  Jesus  "  he  was  led  to  his  investigations  on 
the  New  Testament.  Besides  his  ingenious  hypothesis  on  the 
occasion  and  object  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  his  most  im- 


1  His  "  Do^mengeschichtc ' 
very  valuable  work.  —  Tb. 


(History  of  Christian  Doctrines)  is  really  a 


HISTORY  OF  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  75 

portant  works  in  this  department  are :  "  Tlie  Apostle  Paul " 
(1845),  and  "  Critical  Investigations  on  the  Canonical  Gospels" 
(1847).     Besides   these,  his   smaller  works   on   the   Pastoral 
Epistles,  and  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark  are  also  to  be  mentioned. 
All  these  labors  were  supported  by  the  thought,  that  primitive 
Christianity  is  to  be  conceived  of  in  a  purely  historical  manner, 
and  in  the  dialectic  agitation  of  its  elements  ;  in  which  not  so  * 
much  depends  on  the  persons  as  on  the  idea.      In  addition  to 
the  keenness  of  his  criticism,  the  sometimes  excellent  develop- 
ment of  the  course  of  thought  of  the  Xew  Testament  writings 
in  his  principal  works  is  to  be  made  prominent.     The  results 
of  this  criticism :  the  limiting  of  the  genuine  Epistles  of  Paul 
to  "the  four  principal  ones,  the  bringing  down  of  most  of  the 
other  New   Testament  writings,   especially  of  the  Gospel  of 
John,  to  an  advanced  period  in  the  second  century ;  the  main- 
taining that  the  latter  is  no  historical,  but  a  dogmatic  writing, 
—  but  especially  the  proving  that  the  primitive  Christianity,  mak- 
ing Ebionism  its  starting-point,  developed  through  the  opposition 
of  the  latter  and  Paulinism,  until,  through  accommodation  of 
the  opposition,  the  "  catholic  "  Christianity  was  formed,  and  that 
to  this  accommodation  the  greater  number  of  our  New  Testa- 
ment writings  belong  —  these  results  are  familiar  enough.^    Yet 
it  was  not  Baur  himself,  but,  after  Strauss,  A.  Schwegler,  who  Schwegler. 
with  his  writing  on  Montanism,  and  then  especially  with  his 
work  on  "  The  Post- Apostolic  Times  "  (1846),  had  broken  the 
ice.     More  prudently  has  E.  Zeller,  through  his  treatise  on  the  Zeiler. 
"  Testimonies  for  the  Gospel  of  John,"  on  the  writings  of  Luke, 
and  especially  through  his  writing  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
(1854),  furnished  contributions  to  New  Testament   criticism. 
The  organof  the  "Tubingen  School  "since  1842  was  the"Theol. 
Jalirbiicher,"    founded    by    Zeller,   afterwards   undertaken    by 
Baur  .alone.     Ad.  Hilgenfeld's  '' Zeitschrift  fiir  wissenschaft- HiJgenfeld. 
liche  TheoJogie,"  side  by  side  with  the  periodical  referred  to, 

1  It  is  difficult  to  sec  whether  the  author  in  speaking  of  Baur's  results 
means  to  be  undcfstood  as  endorsing  them  as  scientific  and  well-founded 
or  not.    If  so,  we  cannot,  of  course,  agree  with  hira.  r—  Tb. 


76 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP   HERMENEUTICS. 


Volkmar. 


Hengsten- 
berg. 


held  an  important  place  in  this  direction,  which,  as  at  that  time 
Hilgenfeld  himself,  was  engaged  less,  it  is  true,  in  fathoming  the 
apostolic  than  the  post-apostolic  literature.  Especially  have 
his  works  on  the  Gospels  of  Justin  Martyr,  of  the  Clementines, 
and  of  Marcion,  and  his  "Novum  Testameutum  extra  Can- 
on em  receptum,"  as  also  VoJhnar's  New  Testament  Apocrypha, 
become  very  valuable  mediately  for  the  historico-critical  inves- 
tigation of  the  New  Testament  writings  also.  For  a  long  time 
this  critical  theology  maintained  to  a  considerable  extent  the 
predominance,  but  the  shipwreck  of  the  Hegelian  school,  and  the 
events  of  the  year  1848  disclosed  a  deep  precipice,  and  spread 
such  a  terror  of  the  true  and  supposed  consequences  of  the 
Hegelian  criticism  and  view  of  the  world,  that  a  reaction  also 
in  the  province  of  biblical  study  was  unavoidable. 

34.    Reaction  against  the  Critical-Speculative  Theology. 

As  champion  on  this  field  of  reaction  against  the  critical  and 
speculative  theology,  Hengstenberg  again  meets  us.  With  still 
greater  justice  than  formerly  against  the  Rationalismus  vulgaris, 
he  now  comes  forward  to  battle  against  a  system  which  had 
brought  forth  such  fruits.  The  enhanced  consciousness  of  sin, 
and,  in  connection  with  this,  submission  to  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  hostile  to  criticism  and  unconditional ;  belief  in  abso- 
lute inspiration,  and  the  infallibility  of  the  biblical  Canon, — 
in  short,  the  melting  together  of  Orthodoxy  and  Pietism,  this 
was  the  imposing"  stand-point  adopted  by  Hengstenberg  and  a 
host  of  theologians  against  that  "  destructive  "  theology.  Far 
more  decidedly  still  than  heretofore,  theology,  and  not  least 
Apoio^eti-  biblical  study,  assumed  an  apologetical  character.  The  com- 
ter  Vf*  uS  patibility  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  with  natural  science,  of  the 
8c  00 .  ]3ii3ie  with  astronomy,  the  unity  of  Genesis,  the  Mosaic  origin 
of  the  Pentateuch,  the  genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and 
of  the  second  part  of  Zechariah,  the  identity  of  the  author  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  with  that  of  the  Apocalypse,  etc.,  were 
defended  with  a  zeal  such  as  if  the  salvation  of  the  world 
depended  upon  them.  To  a  remarkable  extent,  on  the  con- 
trary, were  the  material  questions  of  Christianity  neglected  by 


HISTORY  OP  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  77 

this  party,  and  the  contents  of  Scripture  were  disregarded  as 
compared  with  the  form.  The  Scriptures  were  looked  upon  as 
a  stronghold,  where  the  city  exists  for  the  sake  of  the  fortifica- 
tions, and  where  duty  demands  before  everything  else  that  the 
weak  places  be  defended,  i.e.  that  what  is  untenable  or  pre- 
carious be  held  as  more  important  than  the  eternal  truth  itself. 
Hand  in  hand  with  this  formal  apologetical  striving  went  an- 
other theolocrical  tendency,  viz.  the  Chiliastic.     Both  form  the  The 

-1  i  1  -1  1        4.1     i   1     1  Chiliastio 

natural  reaction  against  a  theology  and  a  philosophy  that  haa  tendency, 
seemed  in  part  to  dissolve  the  foundations  of  the  Christian 
faith  ;  that  m  part  had  given  up  the  world  to  come  in  proud 
self-sufficiency  in  the  present.     Still  the  school  of  Bengel  sur- 
vived, yea,  jtist  at  this  time  it  had  a  new  revival,  since  so  many 
phenomena  of  the  time  seemed  to  prepare  for  an  ever  gi^eater 
and  more  fundamental   separation    between    the   kingdom  of 
Christ  and  the  kingdom  of  the  world  and  of  falsehood.     In 
Rev.  xiii.  was  seen  the  connection  of  Anti-Christianity  with 
false  philosophy,  in  2  Thess.  ii.  1-12,  the  dominant  self-deifica- 
tion was  unequivocally  pointed  out.     In  the  momentous  phe- 
nomena of  the  time,  forebodings  of  the  judgment  of  the  world 
were  found.     Such  a  frame  of  mind  led  men  to  read  with 
avidity  the  prophetical  and  eschatological  parts  of  Scripture, 
especially  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  the  Apocalypse,  since  there 
a  wide  field  of  interpretation  was  opened  up  to  those  who  com- 
bined with  their  antagonism  towards  all  historical  criticism  a 
love  for  the  mysterious.     Add  still  farther  the  phantastical  ten- 
dency of  the  time,  and  it  is  natural  that  men  should  turn  away 
from  the  clear  and  simple  parts  of  Scripture  to  those  writings 
that  are  mysterious  and  capable   of   endless   interpretations. 
Those  theologians  who  subscribe  to  this  apologetics  for  that 
reward,  and  who  embrace  this  Chiliastic  tendency  are,  for  the 
most  part,  religious,  learned,  and  clever  men,  as  Christ.  K.  v. 
Hofmann,  in  his  work,  "  Prophecy  and  its  Fulfilment,"  Franz  gofmann, 
Delitzsch  in  his  "  Biblico-prophetical  Theology,"  Kurtz  (''  Text-  and  Aub4r. 
book  of  Sacred  History,")  J.  P.  Lange  ("  Positive  Dogmatics," 
pp.  1271  ff.),  and  pre-eminently  K.  A.  Auherlen  ("  The  Prophet 
7* 


78  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

Daniel  and  the  Revelation  of  John.")  This  last  writer  gained 
a  very  profound  insight  into  the  religious  spirit  and  value  of 
prophecy  ;  so  much  the  more  is  it  to  be  regretted  that  he  opposed 
his  '•  theocratic  "  explanation  to  the  "  secular,"  ^  as  the  "  ration- 
alistic," as  if  the  ideal  and  the  real  history  were  incompatible ; 
thereby  removing  the  Apocalypse  from  its  historical  ground. 
With  this  Chiliastic  direction  is  combined  in  many  the  realistic- 
tlieosophical.  In  opposition  to  "an  old  and  new  philosophizing 
and  dogmatizing  Scripture  interpretation,  which  feels  obliged  to 
Eothe.  spirituali-ze  and  subtilize  the  thoughts  of  the  Bible,  R.  Rothe 
(Preface  to  Auberleu's  "  F.  Ch.  Oetinger"),  says  with  perfect 
justice  :  "  Our  traditional  exegesis  makes  Scripture  intelligible 
to  me ;  but  it  does  riot  suffice  to  niake  it  entirely  and  purely 
intelligible.  The  general  contents  of  the  thoughts  it  knows  well 
how  to  draw  out ;  but  the  peculiar  form  in  which  these  thoughts 
present  themselves  there  it  knows  not  how  to  account  for. 
In  fact,  if  the  Lord  and  his  Apostles  mean  to  say  only  and 
precisely  what  the  interpreters  make  them  say,  they  expressed 
themselves  very  awkwardly  and  incommodiously,  or,  to  speak 
more  properly,  very  extravagantly ; "  and  farther  on,"  The  sys- 
tem of  biblical  fundamental  ideas,  not  expressly  stated,  but  only 
pre-supposed  in  the  Scriptures  themselves,  is  wanting  to  us  ;  it 
is  not  by  any  means  that  of  our  schools  at  the  present  day,  and 
BO  long  as  we  practise  exegesis  without  this  system,  the  Bible 
must  remain  to  us  a  half-closed  book.  With  other  fundamen- 
tal ideas  than  those  current  with  us,  which  we  are  wont  to  re- 
gard as  the  only  possible  ones,  we  must  enter  upon  the  study 
of  the  Bible,  and  whatever  these  ideas  may  be  and  wherever  it 
may  be  proper  to  seek  them,  this  one  thing  at  least  is  absolutely 
certain,  in  accordance  with  the  whole  sound  of  the  melody  of 
Scripture  in  its  natural  fulness,  that  these  must  be  more  reaU 
istic,  more  '  massive.'  "  Since  it  was  recognized,  that  between 
our  conceptions  and  forms  of  thought  and  those  of  the  biblical 
authors  there  exists  a  diiference,  and  that  for  a  perfect  under- 
standing of  Scripture,  an  understanding  not  only  of  the  truths 

•r  j^  I  "  Beicbsgeschichtlichen,"  and  "  Zeitgeschicbtlichen." 


HISTORY  OF  SCRIPTURE  INTERPRETATION.  79 

taught  by  them,  but  also  of  the  forms  of  thought  presupposed 
by  them,  is  requisite ;  men  ought  to  have  been  content  with  this 
insight,  and  to  have  confined  themselves  to  this,  viz.  to  appro- 
priate these  conceptions  to  exegetical  use  and  understanding 
itself.  But  when  men,  now  going  farther,  sought  to  reconcile  Source  of 
that  antique  biblical  conception  with  modern  conceptions  and  cat-  ^"'''■* 
egories,  and  thus  underlaid  the  biblical  writings  with  a  theosoph- 
ical^  system,  they  fell  into  error  which  could  not  but  falsify 
.  Scripture  interpretation.  The  aversion  to  the  simple  and  the 
natural,  the  propensity  towards  the  mysterious,  and  the  pre- 
supposition that  our  reveries  must  also  be  those  of  the  sacred 
authors,  this,  from  the  Alexandrines  until  the  present,  contri-' 
buted  unspeakably  to  the  corruption  of-  exegesis.  (For  a  more 
detailed  discussion  of  this  subject  see  Ilupfeld's  '-  The  Theo- 
sophical  and  Mythological  Theology  and  Scripture  Interpreta- 
tion of  To-day."  18G1). 

35.   Exegesis  in  the  Netherlands. 

If,  by  way  of  supplement,  we  make  a  brief  survey  of  the  his- 
tory of  exegesis  in  the  Netherlands,  this  is  justified  by  the  fact 
that  the  church  and  the  theology  of  the  Netherlands,  in  modern  General 
times  also,  holds  an  honorable  place,  and  not  least  in  matters  ^'^^^^'^t^'- 
of  biblical  study ;  that  just  here  the  science  has  had  a  develop- 
ment very  different  from  the  German.     Holland  has  had  no 
Schleiermacher,  no  Strauss,  no  Tubmgen  School.-     Besides,  the 
Dutch  theology  has  exercised  an  immediate  influence  on  the 
church  and  through  the  church  upon  the  people  and  the  state. 
The  year  1787,  the  year  of  the  founding  of  the  Haager  Society  Haager 
for  the  defense  of  Christianity,  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  epoch  ^''''^^^^' 
of  the  more  recent  Dutch  theology.     As  Ernesti  had  done, 
Kautelaar  showed  that  the  Bible,  while  it  contains  the  divine  Kanteiaar. 
revelations,  was  written  by  men  who,  however  much  they  may 
have  been  illuminated,  did  not  cease  to  be  men ;  and  that  it 
must  be  explained  with  the  help  of  those  means  usually  applied 
to  books  written  in  dead  or  living  languages.     Bosveld  (1756-  Bosyeld. 
1809),  the  most  important  Scripture  interpreter  of  this  period, 
was  prominent  in  the  last  decades  of  the  eighteenth  century. 


I 


80 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OP  HERMENEUTIC3. 


ol  the 
courses  in 
tho  univer- 
sities. 


This  is  evident  from  liis  explaDation  of  1  Cor.  xv.,  of  tlie 
Epistle  to  the  Gahitians,  in  which  he  was  the  first  to  subject 
the  expression  Trtcrrts  'Iiycrov  XptcrToO  to  a  thorough  discussion, 
decided  in  a  negative  sense  the  relation  of  Gal.  ii.  1  ff.,  to  the 
Apostolic  convention,  and  also  first  explained  accurately  the 
disputed  expression  to,  crToiyCia,  rov  Kocrf^ov,  in  which  he  answers 
affirmatively  the  question,  whether  the  Apostles  erred  in  their 
belief  in  the  nearness  at  hand  of  the  Parousia,  appealing  to  Mark 
xiii.  32.  His  explanation  of  the  avOpioito^  ttj^  a^apTta<i  (2  Thess. 
ii.)  is  also  a  proof  of  his  strictly  historical  method.  Scarcely  an 
exegetico-dogmatic  question  of  any  importance  occurs  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles  to  which  Bosveld  with  his  grammatico-historical 
method  did  not  bring  light.  Yet  at  that  time  in  Holland  this 
Separation  method  was  in  its  first  beginnings.  For  the  Dutch  theology,  the 
year  1815  was  so  far  a  decisive  one  as  that,  in  the  place  of  a  uni- 
versity regulation,  according  to  which  every  theological  teacher 
was  obliged  to  lecture  on  dogmatics,  a  complete  separation  of  the 
courses  of  study  was  introduced.  Tliis  could  not  but  redound 
to  the  advantage  of  exegetical  theology.  The  most  recent  time 
likewise  is  fruitful  in  able  works  in  this  department.  \\g  note 
Parcan's  "  Ilermeneutica  Codis  Sacra"  (1846),  Kuenen's  '•  Crit- 
icae  et  Hermeneuticae  Librorum  Novi  Foederis  Lineamenta," 
and  CobeVs  writing  "  De  Arte  InteriDretandi."  .  Excellently 
does  Kuenen,  namely,  say  in  the  work  referred  to  :  "  intelligere 
scriptorem  is  dicendus  est,  qui  idem  quod  ille  dum  scribebat 
cogitavit  legens  cogitat."  In  the  matter  of  Textual  Criticism 
IMill  and  Wetstein  had  already  done  excellent  work.  In  the 
path  thus  beaten  followed  Doedcs  and  Ileringa,  while  Scholten 
especially,  with  his  free  and  sharp  conjectural  criticism,  partic- 
ularly with  reference  to  the  Gospel  of  John,  aroused  much 
opposition.  With  regard  to  exegesis  itself,  that  of  the  Old 
Testament  received  already  in  the  Netherlands  more  attention 
than  that  of  the  New  ;  yet  until  1815  the  freer  investigation  of 
this  part  of  Scripture  [the  O.  T.]  seems  to  have  made  very 

little  proijress  in  the  Netherlands.     Since  that  time  also  more 
Amers-  .  .       , 

voordt.        impartial  mquines  have  come  mto  vogue.     Jac.  Amersvoordt, 


Parcan, 

Knenen, 
and  Cobet 


HISTORY  OP   SCRIPTURE   INTERPRETATION.  81 

van  der  Palm,  Hamaher,  Kitenen,  Hoehstra,  are  here  to  be  i^^im^^^^^ 
mentioned  with  distinction ;  yet  Ilamaker  through  his  ^^'^e  Kuenen/ 
view-  of  prophecy,  as  in  general  through  his  academical 
activity,  has  incurred  the  reproach  of  forming  rationalists.  In 
New  Testament  exegesis,  theology,  and  criticism,  Heringa,  van 
Ilcngel,  Oosterzee,  Niermeyer,  and  Scholten  are  conspicuous. 
For  Ileringa,  exegesis,  it  is  true,  was  only  a  means  for  dog-  Heringa. 
matics,  as  is  attested  by  his  "  Opera  Exegetica  et  Ilermen- 
eutica,"  and  still  more  his  academic  lectures,^  -'Animadversiones 
de  locis  Novi  Testamenti,  quorum  praecipuus  est  usus  in  pro- 
bandis  doctrinae  Christianae  capitibus."  Perhaps  the  most 
important  Nctherlandian  cxegete  in  recent  times  is  IF!  Alb.  van 
Ilengd,  teacher  in  the  high  schools  at  Franeker,  at  Amsterdam,  HengeL 
and  at  Leyden.  His  method  of  interpretation  is  the  grammat- 
ico-oLjective,  and  his  prudence  has  advanced  with  his  years. 
His  '•  Annotatio  in  loca  nonnulla,"  compared  with  his  "  Com- 
mentarius  perpetuus  in  Epistolam  ad  Philippianos,"  and  espe- 
cially with  his  "  Commentarius  in  Epistolam  ad  Gomanos," 
'  furnish  abundant  proof  of  this  improvement.  Ilis  investiga- 
tions in  biblical  theology  on  the  distinction  between  croj/xa  and 
o-apl,  between  /xerdvota  and  l-marpof^iq  prove  him  a  master  in 
this  field  also.  By  as  much  as  verbal  explanation  is  with  him 
the  principal  thing,  is  the  service  which  van  Ilengel,  precisely 
through  this  verbal  explanation,  has  rendered  to  the  dogmatic 
understanding  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  particular,  a 
substantial  service.  Nicrmcyer  has  devoted  himself  principally  Niermeyen 
to  those  parts  of  the  New  Testament  that,  after  the  inquiries 
of  the  school  of  Baur,  seemed  to  be  in  need  of  a  new  examin- 
ation. Especially  are  his  investigations  on  the  Apocalypse  a 
thorough  i>erformance.  Much  would  still  have  been  to  be 
looped  for  from  him  had  not  death  called  him  away  (1855). 
Van  Oosterzee,  Professor  at  Etrecht,  like  Ilengstenberg,  sought  Oosterzee. 
in  his  "  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament,"  to  prove  that  all 
tlie  passages  cited  in  the  New  Testament  as  Messianic,  even 
Isa.  vii.  14,  are  really  Messianic,  even  in  the  minds  of  the 
i  "  Dictate,"  dictated  lectures.  —  Tu. 


82.  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

authors  themselves  ;  in  which  he  is  governed  by  the  presiip- 
.  position  that  the  Ilermeneutics  of  the  New  Testament  writers 
is  in  comjDlete  accord  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
grammatico-historical  interpretation.  This  he  has  set  forth, 
indeed,  in  popular  articles.  "  We  must  confess,'*  says  the 
author  of  the  "  Pragmatic  History  of  Theology  in  the  Nether- 
lands," "  that  on  a  stand-point  like  that  of  Van  Oosterzee  all 
discussion  loses  its  worth."  Yet  his  "  Theology  of  the  New 
Testament,"  e.g.  is  less  biased  than  might,  according  to  what 
has  been  said,  have  been  expected,  and  if  he  maintains  the 
genuiness  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  he  at  least  has  behind  him 
all  th'e  voices  of  the  church,  with  the  single  exception  of  the 
heretic  JMarcion,  up  to  Schleiermacher  and  Baur.  As  an 
opponent  of  Oosterzee,  and  as  head  of  the  liberalistic  theology 

Scholten,  in  Holland,  J.  JL  Scholten,  horn  in  1811,  since  1843  Professor 
at  Leyden,  is  to  be  especially  mentioned.  Besides  his  i^rinci- 
pal  dogmatic  work,  ''  De  Leer  der  Hervormde  Kerk  in  hare 
Grondbeginselen,"  etc.,  and  his  work  on  "  The  Freedom  of  the 
TTill,"  we  may  here  mention  as  characteristic,  his  work  on 
"  The  Gospel  according  to  John,"  his  "  Study  on  the  Apostle 
John  in  Asia  Minor,"  and  his  writing  directed  against  Tischen- 
dorf,  "  The  Most  Ancient  Yv'itnesses  concerning  the  Writings 
of  the  New  Testament."  Scholten  has,  of  course,  the  solid 
majority  of  the  conservative  theologians,  as  Da  Costa,  Doedes, 
Oosterzee,  and  others,  against  him.     We  mention,  finally.  Alb, 

E6ville.  Heville,  pastor  of  the  Wallonian  church  at  Rotterdam,  who  has 
furnished  to  the  Review  of  Colani,  besides  other  important 
critical  articles :   "  Jean  le   Prophete  et  Jean  I'Evangeliste," 

Concluding  and  "  Neron   I'Antichrist."     From   this   poor  enumeration  it 

remarks. 

will  have  been  seen  that  biblical  studies  have  been  pushed  for- 
ward in  Holland  with  zeal  and  thoroughness,  that  the  influence 
of  German  theology  upon  the  Dutch  is  a  very  important  one; 
but  that  notwithstanding  this,  the  latter  has  maintained  an 
independent  -position  ;  that  the  opposition  between  the  conser- 
vative theology  and  the  theology  of  progress  is  very  outspoken, 
yet  so. that  the  former  is  to  be  conceived  of  not  as  the  result 


REVIEW  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  METHODS.      83 

of  a  politico-ecclesiastical  restoration,  but  rather  as  a  result  of 
the  inflexible  character  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church ;  the 
liberal  theology,  on  the  other  hand,  as  a  reaction  against  the  old 
dogmatism  and  traditionalism.  Utrecht  is  distinguished  as  the 
seat  of  the  conservative  theology,  Leyden  as  the  seat  of  the 
advanced  theology.  Cf.  Christ.  Sepp,  "  Johannes  Stinstra  en 
zijn  tijd,"  Amsterdam,  1865.  Ide?7i,  "  Proeve  eener  pragma- 
tische  geschiedens  der  Theologie  in  Nederland,  von  1787  tot 
1858,"  Amsterdam,  1868.^ 

Conclusions  from  the  History  of  Exegesis  for  the 
Jfature  and  the  Principles  of  Scripture  hvber' 
pretation. 

a)  Review  of  the  various  Ea:egetical  Methods, 

35.   The  Exegetical  EViethcds  Compared. 

Various  as  the  methods  of  interpretation  have  been,  great  a3 
have  been  the  distortions  and  the  errors  of  exegesis ;  yet  nearly 

1  Is  it  true  or  is  it  not  that  in  recent  times  En2;land  and  America  can 
boast  of  no  names  worthy  to  be  put  alon3:side  of  those  that  have  been 
mentioned  as  figurin;r  prominently  in  the  history  of  Scripture  interpreta- 
tion ?  If  we  have  an  eye  simply  to  the  influence  that  Scripture  interpreters 
in. these  countries  have  exercised,  wc  may  say  with  confidence  that  a  score 
might  easily  be  here  mentioned;  but  if  we  consider  them  from  the  point 
of  view  of  i-eai  merit,  Ave  will  not  be  inclined  to  chide  our  author  for  pass- 
ing them  by  without  mention.  If  we  will  look  at  the  matter  calmly  we 
shall  see,  that  in  the  department  of  biblical  exegesis,  English-speaking 
people  in  the  present  ccntur}^  are,  indeed,  strangely  deficient.  We  shall 
see  that  the  few  men  that  have  stood  highest  in  biblical  exegesis  have  been 
men  that  derived  not  their  ipspiration  simply,  but  also  their  material,  so 
directly  and  to  so  large  an  extent  from  the  Germans,  that  the  Germans 
cannot  but  regard  ihem  as  mere  satellircs  of  themselves.  Without  going 
much  farther  into  the  past  than  our  own  generation,  let  us  call  to  mind 
the  names  that  stand  pi:e-erarinent  in  exegesis  in  England  and  in  this  coun- 
try, and  we  shall  sec  that  so  far  as  they  are  not  simply  reproducers  of  the 
exegesis  of  the  ancient  and  the  mediaeval  church  (as  Wordsworth,  Pusoy, 
and  others),  their. indebtedness  to  the  Germans  (usually  most  ingenuously 
acknowledged)  is  to  be  traced  page  by  page.  This  statement  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  an  imputation  of  a  blind  and  unreasoning  following  of  au- 
thorities on  the  part  of  the  honored  men  whose  names  are  to  be  mentioned. 
They  have  done,  indeed,  a  niost  important  service  to  the  cause  of  biblical 
study  J  most  of  theiii  have  done  more  or  less  work  in  some  sense  original; 


84  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTIC3. 

all  have  proceeded  from  a  more  or  less  right  feeling.     In  order 
to  derive  from  the  history  of  exegesis  the  true  method,  it  is  re- 
quisite that  we  always  recognize  the  true  in  error,  and  tlieu 
f,    Allegorical  ascertain  where  truth  and  error  separate.     The  Allegorical  in- 
tiJny^"^^  ^'   terpretation,  the  oldest  of  all,  presupposes  that  the  Scriptures 
contain  the  truth ;  but  since  between  the  spirit  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  that  of  the   interjDreter  a   considerable   difference 
exists,  the  allegorist  seeks  to  remove  this  difference  by  regard- 
ing w^hat  opposes  him  in  Scripture  as  mere  form,  as  external 
a-wjxa,  and  searches  behind  this  for  the  deeper  sense,  which  must 
■  be  identical  v/ith  that  of  the  interpreter.  The  element  of  truth  in 
•  this  method  is,  that  the  Scriptures  have  a  sense  and  spirit  wliich 
;  does  not  always  lie  upon  the  surface,  but  must  be  sought  for. 
■  I  But  the  error  is  the    presupposition  that  this  sense  and  spirit 
"  must  be  in  accord  with  that  of  the  interpreter  and  his  time.. 
The  allegorical  interpretation  rests  also  upon  a  dualistic  separa- 
tion of  the  verbal  sense  and  the  deei3er  sense,  instead  of  con- 
ceiving both  in  their  unity.     The  allegorical  -interpretation  is, 
in  one  word,  the  product  of  an  unconditional  respect  for  Scrip- 
ture and  a  deliciency  in  historical  appreciation.     The  interpre- 
tation   according   to    the  fourfold  sense    of  Scripture^    v/hich 
prevailed  throughout  the  Middle  Ages,  aims  to  correct  the 
allegorical  interpretation  by  vindicating  to  the   verbal    sense 
(the  littera)  a  right  of  its  own,  but  otherwise  it  agrees  with  the 
first  entirely,  only  that  it  is  still  worse,  in  that  it  holds  not  to 

but  that  they  have  been  dcpcnclcnt  for  their  high  attainments  on  the  Ger- 
mans none  would  be  more  ready  to  admit  than  themselves.  Of  such  men  we 
may  mention,  in  England,  Elllcott,  Lightfoot,  Alford,  Stanley,  and  David' 
son  ;  in  America,  Stuart,  Alexander,  and  IlacJcett.  There  arc,  of  course, 
scores  of  others  that  would  deserve  to  be  mentioned  in  an  extended  notice 
of  English  and  American  exegesis.  "We  could  find  in  English  and  Ame- 
rican exegesis  worthy  representatives  of  all  the  various  methods  of  inter- 
pretation. Nay,  we  could  show  that  at  the  present  time  all  the  various 
methods  exist  side  by  side.  Where,  even  in  the  Middle  Ages,  can  be  iound, 
for  instance,  a  more  nonsensical  piece  of  allegorizing  than  that  presented 
to  the  learned  in  England  and  America  by  Dr.  Kay  in  his  recent  Com- 
mentary on  Isaiah  (in  the  Bible  Commentary)?  It  is  a.  sad  reflection  on 
the  public  opinion  in  these  countries,  that  such  a  work  should  meet  with 
acceptance.  —  Tr. 


REVIEW   OF  THE   EXEGETICAL  METHODS.  85 

one  only,  but  to  various  deeper  senses,  and  still  less  than  the 
simple  allegorical  does  it  know  how  to  conceive  of  these  senses 
in  their  organic  unity  with  the  verbal  sense.  If  in  the  allegorical 
method,  as  the  old  Alexandrines  practised  it,  wide  scope  was  given 
to  arbitrariness,  in  the  application  of  the  method  of  the  four- 
fold sense  this  was  incomparably  more  the  case.     The  Dogmatic  Tiiepojr-       ^ 

^  ♦'  "^  mafic  inter- 

interpretation,    as    it    prevailed    especially   in    the    Protestant  pretation. 

Church  at  the  time  of  the  doniination  of  Orthodoxy,  proceeded 
from  the  true  view  that  Scripture  will  teach  truth,  and  indeed 
divine  truth.  To  seek  and  to  find  this  it  regarded  as  its  work. 
But  it  erred  not  only  in  manifoldly  misjudging  and  disregard- 
ing the  ways  and  means  through  which  alone  the  truth  is  to  be 
arrived  at,  but  chiefly  in  starting  from  definite  dogmatic  pre- 
suppositions, in  interpreting  according  to  these,  and  in  settling 
beforehand  the  result  which  must  or  must  not  be  arrived  at. 
The  principal  dogmatic  presupposition  was  the  mechanical  in- 
spiration of  Scripture,  and  as  a  result  of  this  its  infalliljility  in 
even  the  minutest  and  most  external  matters,  as  also  the  view  / 
that  the  whole  Bible  is  an  organic  Codex  of  Revelation.  What  ' 
now,  did  not  accord  with  this  presupposition  must  be  exrget- 
ically  pressed  until  it  said  notiiing  else  than  what  vv^as  pre- 
supposed. With  this  was  joined  another  perverted  striving, 
viz.  to  make  Scripture  minister  to  the  polemics  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical confession.  Accordingly  notiiing  must  be  found  in 
Scripture  v/hich  could  favor  the  view  of  an  opponent,  and 
where  such  was  really  lighted  upon  it  must  be  manipulated 
with  exegetical  artifices ;  while  all  passages  that  seemed  to 
support  the  opinions  of  the  ptirty  itself  were  digged  out,  and 
the  whole  of  Scripture  was  regarded  as  an  arsenal  for  the  com- 
bating of  opponents.  This  use  of  Scripture  exercised  a  ruin- 
ous influence  on  exegesis,  not  only  by  pressing  this  into  the 
strait-jacket  of  ecclesiastical  Orthodoxy,  but  also  by  causing  the 
Scriptures  to  be  regarded  as  an  atomistic  collection  of  dicta 
probantia.  The  Pietistic  interpretation,  therefore,  opposed  T^ie  Picti!!-  q 
itself  to  the  Orthodox  with  justice  so  far  as  it  proceeded  from  tation. 
the  correct  view,  that  the  Scriptures  are  designed  not  so  much  J 
8  / 


f 


86  GENERAL   PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

for  the  instruction  of  the  understanding  as  for  the  awakening 
of  the  heart  and  the  sanctification  of  the  life.  It  was  perfectly 
right  also  in  placing  the  Scriptures  above  ecclesiastical  symbols, 
and  in  not  holding  a  priori,  that  the  sense  of  Scripture  could 
not,  and  must  not,  contradict  these.  But  a  degrading  and  a 
fattening  of  exegesis  was  the  •  consequence  of  the  fact  that 
Pietism,  misjudging,  not  less  than  Orthodoxy,  the  historical 
character  of  the  biblical  writings,  neglected,  nay,  in  part 
despised,  the  grammatical,  historical,  and  logical  helps  through 
which  the  genuine  sense  of  Scripture  must  be  found.  Pietism 
overwhelmed  the  Bible  with  edificatory  reflections  and  prac- 
tical applications,  and  thus  confounded  Scripture  explanation 
with  Scripture  application.  It  threw  itself  also  with  avidity 
not  unfrequently  upon  such  writings  as  the  Song  of  Solomon, 
the  "  spiritual "  interpretation  of  which  furnished  endless 
/r-   The  Ration-  material    for   amatory   intercourse'    with    the   Saviour.      The 

/       alistic  inter-   t».,..  ,.  ,.  .  .  ., 

) "  pretation.  Maiionalistic  explanation  stood  m  a  certam  connection  with 
the  Pietistic,  in  as  far  as  it  also  was  opposed  to  the  dogmatic 
and  regarded  moral  amelioration  as  the  aim  of  Scripture.  The 
/  Rationalistic  explanation  proceeded  from  the  correct  viev/  that, 
above  all,  the  Scriptures  must  be  conceived  of  and  interpreted 
i  historically.  This  historical  interpretation  could  take  either  of 
two  roads  ;  it  could  eitlier,  in  opposition  to  the  fetters  which 
hitherto  the  church  had  laid  upon  human  thought,  cast  aside  the 
opposing  thoughts  and  conceptions  as  merely  local  and  temporal, 
as  Judaizing  opinions,  in  place  of  which  the  flattest  human 
understanding  was  then  frequently  taken  as  the  norm  ;  or  it 
could  proceed  from  the  presupposition  that  the  Bible  proper 
means  to  teach  nothing  else  than  the  "  religion  of  reason,"  and 
accordingly  make  the  sense  of  Scripture  accord  as  nearly  as 
possible  with  "  reason."  In  this  was  overlooked  the  fact  that 
"reason"  is  nothin^r  finished  and  unchanwable,  but  varies 
according  to  the  age,  popular  spirit,  and  individuality  ;  varies 
according  to  the  relation  of  the  human'  heart  to  God.  Pre- 
cisely  for  the  profoundest  and  most  Christian  thoughts,  for  the 

1  "  Liebes'.andelcien,"  not  easy  to  render  j  but  the  meaning  is  clear.— Tb. 


REVIEW  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  METHODS.      87 

thoughts  that  have  renewed  the  world,  and  that  have  power  at 
all  times  to  renew  the  human  heart,  the  Rationalistic  "  reason  " 
had  no  apjireciation.  The  Grammatico-historical  interpreta-  The  Gram- 
tion  is  Hot,  as  is  so  often  maintained,  identical  with  the  Ration-  toHcaiin-"' 
alistic.  This  stands  unconditionally  on  the  correct  presupposi- N^'^^'^^  ^  ^'^^ 
tion  that  the  Bible,  as  well  in  its  totality  as  in  its  parts,  is  a 
historical  product ;  and,  however  divine  it  may  be  according  to 
its  final  origin  and  essential  contents,  was  written  by  men  in 
human  languages  and  under  human  relations  ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, it  is  to  be  interpreted  with  similar  hel-ps  and  according  to^ 
the  same  principles  as  other  books  of  antiquity.  These  inter- 
preters thus  bestow  upon  the  study  of  the  language,  as  the 
organ  of  the  thoughts  of  the  author,  the  same  industry  as  upon 
the  language  of  the  so-called  profane  authors,  convinced  that 
this  is  the  only  correct  and  possible  way  of  ascertaining  the 
genuine  sense  of  the  sacred  author.  They  study  the  person  of 
the  author  and  his  time,  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the 
agitations  of  his  time,  the  occasion  and  the  object  of  his  writ- 
ing. If  now  in  all  this  the  grammatico-historical  interpreters 
held  unconditionally  the  right  position,  it  is  not  to  be  ignored 
that  the  grammatico-historical  inquiries  and  the  historico- 
critical  researches  may  be  made  so  much  the  chief  thing  that 
what  is  properly  the  chief  thing,  the  sense  and  spirit  of  the 
author,  may  be  altogether  neglected.  It  is  not  to  be  denied 
that  the  purely  objective  position  of  the  interj^reter  with  refer- 
ence to  his  author  could  easily  degenerate  into  indifference  to 

what    he    says,  and    this    into    inability  to    understand.     The  The  Critical      / 
,  .  interpreta-         'j 

Critical  interpretation  is  very  closely  akin  to  the  historical,  tion. 
Without  Criticism  no  historical,  and  hence  also  no  exegetical, 
inquiry  is  possible.  Besides  Textual  Criticism,  Historical  Crit- 
icism is  also  necessary.  The  critical  treatment  of  Scripture 
often  comes  now  into  conflict  with  certain  traditional  opinions 
which  it  is  its  business  to  test ;  nay,  it  is  itself  in  great  part 
nothing  else  than  the  testing  of  traditional  opinions  with  refer- 
ence to  the  author,  the  age,  and  the  relations  under  which  the 
writing   under   consideration    arose.     From   this  cause  it  has 


/■ 


88  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

come  into  disreimte  with  believers  in  tradition.  Criticism  and 
Revelation  have  been  set  up  as  antagonists,  unjustly ;  not 
Revelation  and  Criticism,  but  Tradition  and  Criticism,  are  an- 
tagonistic. Now  it  is  certainly  not  to  be  denied  that  in  this  prov- 
ince, where  combination  and  conjecture  have  to  do  their  best,  a 
wide  field  is  opened  for  arbitrariness  and  fancifulness.  Not 
as  if  critical  conjecture  or  hypothesis  were  in  itself  inadmissi- 
ble ;  there  may  be  even  here  a  Copernicus,  a  Kepler,  or  a 
Newton  !  But  every  hypothesis,  even  the  most  brilliant,  must 
be  verified,  i.e.  all  essential  phenomena  must  be  found  explica- 
ble by  it,  or  at  least  must  not  contradict  it.  Yet  only  the 
smallest  number  of  hypotheses  are  so  fortunate,  and  if  never- 
theless, despite  contradictory  i)henomena,  a  hypothesis  is  to  be 
held  fast  at  all  hazards  ;  if  one  has  eyes  only  for  what  favors 
his  hypothesis,  no  eyes  for  what  is  unfavorable  ;  criticism,  to- 
gether with  the  exegesis  that  rests  upon  it,  has  got  upon  a 
wrong  road.  If  then,  moreover,  such  a  conjecture  has  been 
given  out  as  a  dogma,  an  unverified  result  as  the  watchword 
of  a  party,  all  scientific  discussion  is  at  an  end.     Diametrically 

'Hie        ^     opposed  to  the  critical  treatment  of  Scripture  stands  the  Apol- 
Apolopetic      ^  ^        .  T  T       .   1  1  ,  . 

interpreta-   oqetic.     In  the  face  of  an  arbitrarv  and  tendential  Mivpercri- 
tiou.  r .        .     .     .       ,        .  ,         ,        .    .*  ,  .  ,  .    , 

ticism  It  IS  in  the  right,  when  it  in  turn  subjects  this  hyper- 
criticism  to  criticism,  and  vindicates  the  grounds  that  may  be 
^jdduced  in  favor  of  the  traditional  view.  But  so  far  as  this 
( Apologetical  treatment  of  Scripture  seeks  to  sustain  the  tradi- 
tional view  at  all  hazards,  even  at  the  sacrifice  of  subjective 
truth  and  scientific  conscientiousness) it  also  becomes  tenden- 
tial, and  has  no  right  to  complain  of  the  tendential  criticism. 
If  it  be  tendential  to  be  willing  to  see  only  what  makes  against 
the  usual  view,  it  is  no  less  tendential  to  be  willing  to  see  and 
to  give  due  weight  to  that  only  which  is  favorable  thereto. 
Tl:us,  viz.  it  is  only  at  the  sacrifice  of  scientific  accuracy  that 
men  have  sought  to  support  by  all  the  artifices  of  an  ingenious 
Bible  interpretation  the  complete  accord  of  the  sense  in  which 
the  New  Testament  writers  employ  certain.  Old  Testament 
1  See  Translator's  Preface.  —  Tr. 


REVIEW  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  METHODS.      89 

passages  with  the  original  sense  of  these  passages,  or  the  har- 
mony of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  and  conception  of  the  world 
with  the  results  of  geology  and  astronomy ;  or  that  they  ex- 
plain away  historical  contradictions,  which  are  manifest  to 
every  unprejudiced  mind.  If  then,  moreover,  such  a  hyper- 
conservative  treatment  of  Scripture  is  put  forth  as  the  only 
"  believing"  one  ;  yet  by  this  means  scientific  and  honorable  dis- 
cussion is  just  as  much  cut  off  as  by  a  critical  conjecture  set  forth 
under  the  name  of  liberality.     We  conclude  with  the  Spirit-  The  Spirit- 

.  .       .  "^        ,  ,  -^  ualistic  in- 

uulistic  {Pneumatic)  interpretation.  This  rests  upon  the  trueV^preta- 
presupposiiion,  that  the  divine  spirit  of  Scripture  can  be  ^.n-  j 
derstood  only  by  means  of  the  divine  spirit.  In  fact,  Scrip-  j 
ture  must  be  read  and  explained  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was 
written,  since  only  the  related  can  understand  the  related.  But 
it  is  a  great  misapprehension  and  an  arrant  misuse  of  the 
Pneumatic  interpretation,  if  one,  in  proud  contempt  of  the 
human  means  which  condition  a  thorough  and  assured  under- 
standing, supposes  that  he  has  in  his  "  devoutness"^  the  only  true 
and  infallible  key  to  knowledge,  and  from  this  his  stand-point, 
as  from  a  tripod,  maintains  instead  of  investigating.  So  also 
it  is  a  great  perversion  of  the  Spiritualistic  interpretation  if  — 
not  content  with  the  simple  and  assured  sense  of  the  author  — 
one  underlays  him  with  one's  own  profound  system  and  makes 
him  utter  mysteries  which  only  an  artificia-l  explanation  can 
interpret  into  him.  As  an  opposition  to  the  flat  intelligence 
of  the  Rationalistic  exegesis  this  Spiritualistic  interpretation 
has  its  historical  authorization;  it  has  also  its  exegetical  author- 
ization in  as  far  as  the  words  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  con- 
tain in  fact  mysteries  which  only  the  initiated  can  understand 
(1  Cor.  ii.  6  If,).  But  as  far  as  the  interpreter  goes  to  work 
not  so  much  to  ascertain  what  the  author  says  and  means  as 
what  he  himself  desires  that  he  may  say  and  mean  ;  so  far  as 
he  from  private  aversion  to  the  clear  and  the  simple,  catches 
at  mysteries,  the  spiritualistic  interpretation  is  on  a  dangerous 
by-path.     To  this  hankering  after  the  mysterious,  a  province 

■  1 "  Glaubiirkeit," 


90  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OP   HERMENEUTICS. 

in  which  the  phantasy  of  the  interpreter  has  the  freest  play, 
Tiie  the  Chiliastic  tendency,  and  especially  the  aversion  to  the  his- 

tendency,  torical  interpretation  of  the  Apocalypse,  are  also  in  great  part 
to  be  ascribed.  Over  against  such  an  exposition  (or  rather  im- 
position) the  rule  of  the  Reformers  is  to  be  remembered,  that 
the  obscure  in  Scripture  is  to  be  explained  by  the  clear,  and 
not  conversely. 

p)    The  Right  Exegetical  Stand-point, 
37.   The  true  View  of  Scripture. 

In  recent  times  everything  in  exegesis  and  Scripture  study 

seems  to  move  around  the  question,  whether  the  Bihle  is  to  be 

regarded  and  treated  as  a  divine  or  as  a  human  icriting.    But 

the  way  in  which  the  question  is  put  is  thoroughly  wrong,  since 

The  Bible  as  even  he  that  regards  the  Scriptures  as  a  divine  book,  cannot 

book.  deny  that  they  were  written  by  human  authors,  however  much 

they  may  have  been  inspired,  in  human  language  and  under 

human  and  temporal  relations  ;  that,  for  example,  the  language 

of  the  New  Testament  writings  is  impure,  that  many  of  their 

presuppositions  and  conceptions  are  current  Jewish  opinions, 

and  not  eternal  truths  ;  as  also  that  the  text  of  the  Bible  has 

come  down  to  us  through  countless  and  varying  copies,  and 

hence  partially  in  an  uncertain  and  corrupted  form.     On  the 

As  a /^uma?l  other  hand,  he  who  regards  the  Bible  as  a  human  book,  will 
book.  '  &  ' 

acknowledge  that  it  contains  divine  thoughts  and  eternal  truths, 
and  that  it  has  exerted  an  influence  on  humanity  such  as  no 
other  book  has  exerted.  Accordingly,  the  farmer,  unless  he 
shuts  himself  up  in  narrow  obstinacy  against  the  most  notorious 
facts,  will  see  that  the  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  cannot 
be  reached  without  linguistic  and  historical  help.  The  latter, 
in  turn,  cannot  but  regard  exegesis  as  then  first  complete,  when 
his  critical,  grammatical,  and  historical  investigations  have  re- 
vealed to  him  the  sense  and  the  thoughts  of  the  sacred  author ; 
since  otherwise  he  would  have  no  understanding  at  all  for  these 
things.  Not  thus,  therefore,  is  the  i:)rincipal  question  to  be 
put,  whether   the    Bible   is  a  divine  or   a   human   book,  but 


REVIEW  OF  THE  ^XEGETICAL  METHODS.      91 

whether  the  interpreter  is  to  go  to  his  work  ivith  or  without  Tiie  correct 
presuppositions.     The  old   exegetes   answered    this   question  of'lhe  quL 
empliatically  in  the  first  sense.     See,  e.g.  in  M.  Flacius,  Clavis  *'''''• 
Scripturae  Sacrae.     But  confessional  writings  also,  as  the  Con- 
fessio  Helvetica  Posterior  (c.  2),  set  forth  the  principle  that  in- 
terpretation must  agree  with  the  regula  fidei.     If  by  the  regula  The  regula 
fidei  is  understood  the  Apostolicum  or  some   other  ecclesias- 
tical symbol,  the  rule  is  thoroughly  objectionable ;  since,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  utter  insufficiency  of  this  norm,  it  is  altogether 
impracticable  to  explain  the  original  by  the  derivative.     But, 
if  by  the  regula  fidei  is  understood  certain  general  principles 
which  are  themselves  drawn  from  Scripture,  this  comes  nearer 
to  the  truth,  but  everything  depends  on  whether  these  prin- 
ciples have  been  really  drawn  from  Scripture  and  according  to 
correct  exegetical  hisight.     The  setting  up  of  these  principles 
as  regula  fidei  et  norma   interpretandi   presupposes    already, 
therefore,  a   thorough    exegesis.     More    correctly   will   these 
principles  be  so  conceived  of,  that  that  is  to  be  set  up  as  the 
norma  interpretandi  which  differentiates  the  biblical  rell.^ion 
from  other  religions,  in  which,  however,  a  historical  study  of  i^  the  unity 

T    •  •  1        mi  ol  Scripture 

religions  is  presupposed.     The  presui^position  is  here,  above  *«  be  pre- 
all,  the  miity  of  Scripture.     The  question  reduces  itself  there-  ^"^^""^^^^ 
fore,  to  this,  Whether  the  exegete  must  presuppose  the  unity 
of  Scripture  ?     Not  so,  at  all  events,  that  on  account  of  the 
unity  he  should  under-estimate  the  diversities',  and  seek  to  bring 
out,  e.g.  the  doctrine  of  justification  through  faith  even  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  which    can   be  no    otherwise   accomplished 
than  through  the  most  forced  exegesis.     The  doctrinal  unity 
of   the    Scriptures    can   rather  be   only  the  abstraction  from 
rightly  apprehended  distinctions:  therefore  not  so  much  the 
presupposition  as  the  goal  of  exegesis.     This  holds,  however, 
only  of   scientifically   determined   unity;  but   from   this    the 
general  impression  is  to  be  distinguished,  which  the  unlearned  The  general 
as  well  as  the  learned  reader  of  the  Scriptures  receives,  that  '"'P''^'''*'''- 
everything  in  the  Bible  is  directed  to  the  glory  of  God,  and  not 
to  the  glory  of  man,  and  that  man  is  throughout  assumed  to 


92  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

be  a  dependent,  sinful  being,  in  need  of  salvation.  This  is  so 
much  the  case  that  he  who  sees  men,  and  fii-st  of  all  himself, 
only  in  the  great  and  the  beautiful,  is  to  such  an  extent  desti- 
tute of  an  understanding  for  the  Scriptures,  that  the  Scriptures 
must  present  themselves  to  him  rather  as  foolishness ;  while  to 
him  alone  is  tlie  sense  of  the  Bible  disclosed,  who  through  a 
living  experience  and  a  self-knowledge  has  arrived  at  the  con- 
sciousness of  his  own  sinfiTlness  and  need  of  salvation,  and  of 
that  of  the  whole  human   race.     Thus,  not  a  doctrinal  pre- 

Need  of  in-  supposition,  but  an  inner  affinity  on  the  part  of  the  interpreter 
'  with  the  general  spirit  of  Scripture,  is  indispensable  to  the 
understanding  of  Scripture.  Usually,  however,  this  condition 
is  found  insufficient  and  another  condition  set  up,  viz.  uncon- 
ditional belief  in  the  authority  and  inspiration  of  Scripture 
must  be  the  key  to  the  right  understanding.     With  regard  to 

Views  of  in-  inspiration  we  refer  to  what  has  been  said  above  (§  8  ff.).  Here 
we  enter  only  upon  the  question.  Whether  this  unconditional 
reverence,  to  which  the  Bible  is  a  sacred  thing  not  to  be 
touched,  or  spiritual  kinship  and  love,  conditions  the  right  un- 
derstanding ?  Xow  it  is,  of  course,  true  that  respect  for  the 
Bible,  and  especially  for  the  word  of  God  contained  in  the 
Bible,  is  the  attitude  towards  Scripture  with  which  we,  as  a 
rule,  begin  ;  but  nobody  would  maintain  that  this  respect,  so 
long  as  it  remains  mere  respect  and  does  not  advance  to  posi- 
tive interest  and  to  believing  desire  for  knowledge,  is  a  means 
to  the  understanding  of  Scripture.     To  be  convinced  that  the 

Orthodox     contrary  is  the  case  one  has  only  to  appeal  to  the  Orthodox 

excwtes  of  ^     ,  ,  \  ,         ,      ,  , 

tiipiTtiicen-  exegetes  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  to  ask,  whether  they 
Keibrmers.  understood  and  interpreted  Scripture  better  than  the  Reformers? 
Still  less  advantageous  to  interpretation  tlian  this  general 
respect  is  the  respect  which  has  advanced  to  the  dogmatic 
belief  in  inspiration,  and  which  has  thus  become  petrified.  The 
belief  in  inspiration  is  originally  nothing  else  than  the  dog- 
matic reflection  on  the  impression  which  Scripture  makes  upon 
the  reader.  This  impression  is  still  very  freshly  and  vividly 
described  by  Calvin  (Instit.  I.  8, 1),  although  he  had  elsewhere 


REVIEW  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  METHODS.      93 

already  (ibid.  7,  4  at  beginning)  laid  down  the  premises  of  the 
unconditional  belief  in  inspiration.     If  this  nnconditional  belief     • 
in  inspiration  is,  as  a  result,  of  doubtful  value  for  interpretation, 
as  a  TrpoXi^iJ/Ls   or  presupposition    it   can  only  be  deleterious. 
The  belief  in  inspiration  presents  itself  at  the  present  day,  it  is  Va-uenpsg 
true,  for  the  most  part  in  a  more  moderate  form ;  human  ele-  ern'vieTof 
ments  are  admitted  in   Scripture ;  textual   criticism  and  the  *"'P^'^"^^- 
grammatico- historical    interpretation    are   not   despised.     But 
then,  it  is' not  easy  to  see  what  is  to  remain  of  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration  ;  for,  if  the  view  is  once  abandoned  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  auctor  primarius  of  Scripture,  and  that  the  human 
authors  are  only  his  amanuenses,  it  matters  very  little  whether 
the  limits  of  the  activity  of  the  human  understanding  and  will 
—  this  activity  having  been  once  admitted — be  fixed  somewhat 
wider  or  somewhat  narrower,  and  all  that  is  left  of  the  dogma 
of  inspiration  is  the  view  that,  the  biblical  authors  wrote  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     But  this  view  is  of  very 
trifling  consequence  for  Scripture  interpretation,  and  it  avoids 
with  difficulty  the  dualistic  fundamental  conception  which  hin- 
ders rather  than  furthers  sound  exegesis.     This  principle  is,  The  prin- 
in  general,  to  be  adhered  to  :  that  eveiy  presupjjosition  which  adhered^to. 
would  in  any  way  anticipate  the  exegetical  result  is  inadmis- 
sible. 

The  opposite  requirement  is,  that  Scripture  interpretation  be  Freedom 
entirely  free  from  presiipjwsition.     The  meaning  of  this  re-  suppoStion 
quirement  is,  that  the  sense  of  the  Bible  in  its  totality  and  in 
its  single  parts  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  purely  historical  fact, 
to  be  ascertained  in  a  purely  historical  way.     The  interpreter, 
accordingly,  is  to  bring  no  opinion  of  his  own  to  his  work,  but 
is  to  regard  the  writing  to  be  interpreted,  in  its  totality  and  in 
its  parts,  as  an  unknown  x.     So  also,  he  is  to  hold  himself 
altogether  indifferent  to  the  sense  of  Scripture  —  whether  this 
is  true  or  not  is  no  concern  of  his.     It  is  perfectly  true,  cer- 
tainly, that  the  interpreter  is  to  regard  the   sense   of  his  au- 
thor as  a  historical  fact,  to  he  ascertained  in  a  historical  way.  Elements  of 
It   is   perfectly   true  that   he  is  not   to   allow   his  mhjectivey^'^.''''^'^ 


94  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

opinion  to  influence  the  material  of  exegetical  inquiry^  But 
whether  such  an  attitude  of  the  interpreter  to  his  object  as  in 
general  is  abstracted  from  all  presuppositions,  and  maintains  a 
state  of  perfect  indifference  towards  the  object,  is  possible,  and 
whether  it  is  the  right  attitude,  this  requires  investigation.     Is 

Is  it  pos-  it,  indeed,  possible  for  the  interpreter  of  Homer  to  avoid  all 
presupposition  with  reference  to  the  poet  and  his  work,  to 
leave  even  all  subjective  interest  behind,  to  remain  indifferent 
to  the  beauties  of  the  Illiad  and  the  Odyssey  ?  Is  it  possible 
for  the  interpreter  of  Plato  to  come  to  his  author  without  any 

Is  it  right?  presupposition  and  without  any  interest?  Or,  if  it  were  even 
possible,  could  it  be  maintained  as  the  right  way  ?  Is  such  an 
indifferent  attitude  of  the  interpreter  towards  his  author  really 
conducive  to  the  understanding  of  the  author  ?  Certainly  not ! 
How  much  less  can  this  be  the  case  with  writings  that  address 
themselves  far  less  to  the  empirical  man,  and  which  are  directed 
towards  that  in  man   which  men   themselves  usually  rather 

Confusion  hide  from  !  "When  freedom  from  presupposition  is  spoken  of 
as  a  requisite  of  the  interpreter,  his  deportment  in  his  work 
and  with  reference  to  the  material  results  to  be  attained,  and 
his  attitude  towards  the  author  and  towards  his  writing  in*^gen- 
eral,  are  usually  confounded.  With  reference  to  the  former, 
the  interpreter  must  be  free  from  prepossession,  i.e.  he  must 
not  allow  his  subjective  opinions  and  desires  to  influence  in  the 
least  his  investigations,  nor  to  determine  the  result.  But  with 
regard  to  the  latter,  a  general  interest  in  his  author,  and  sym- 
pathy with  him,  are  not  only  admissible,  but  an  indispensable 

Compatibii-  condition  for  the  understanding  of  his  thoughts.     So  also,  it 

two  require-  Cannot  1)6  maintained  —  as  might  seem  to  be  the  case  —  that 
this  interest  for  tlie  author  and  that  freedom  from  prepossesion 
in  reference  to  the  immediate  result  of  the  exegetical  investi- 
gation are  incompatible,  that  these  requirements  contradict 
each  other;  since  if  only  this  interest  is  pure,  it  will  heur 
nothing  else  than  the  author,  know  nothing  else  tlian  v.'liat  he 
says  and  menus  to  siy.  If  only  the  interpreter  has  a  right  lore 
for  his  author  founded  on  esteem;  this  esteem  and  love  impose 


REVIEW  OP  THE  EXEGETICAL  METHODS.      95 

upon  him  that  self-denial  which  abstracts  him  from  his  own 
thinking,  and  guards  against  attributing  the  same  to  the  author ; 
as  if  the  author  were  to  be  regarded  as  a  teacher  of  the  truth 
only  under  the  condition  that  he  says  what  it  is  desired  that  he 
should  say,  and  nothing  else.  We  may  sum  up  what  has  been 
said  in  this  proposition  :  For  the  understanding  of  Scriptitre  a  Principle 
loving  interest  is  necessary,  vfhich.  manifests  itself  in  willing- ^^^^  ^  ' 
7iess  to  hear  the  author  himself  and  nothing  hut  the  author. 

38.    Principles  of  Interpretation. 

A  tolerably  ■  old  and  much  discussed  question  is  :  Whether  Question 
the  Scriptures  are  to  he  interpreted  according  to  the  same 
principles  as  any  other  hook  ?  After  the  church  had 
universally  proceeded  from  the  opposite  view,  it  was  Ernesti 
principally  (see  above,  §  28),  who  thoroughly  proved  that  the 
means  for  the  understanding  of  Scripture  can  be  no  other  than 
those  that  are  applied  in  the  interpretation  of  any  other  book 
of  antiquity.  In  opposition  to  this,  then,  the  spiritualistic  in- 
terpretation pre-eminently  has  again  treated  Scripture  in  an 
altogether  exceptional  manner,  and  even  to  the  present  day 
Ernesti's  proposition  seems  to  the  "  Bible  Christians,"  ^  a  pro- 
fane assertion.  The  question  can  be  fundamentally  answered 
only  in  concreto. 

a)   The  Scriptures  are  to  he  explained  as  any  other  writing  The  general 

/,  .       .  .  X  .  ,  .  .  .  ,      principle. 

of  antiquity,  smce,  a)  as  m  every  other  ancient  writing  the 
Text  is  to  be  determined  on  the  ground  of  critical  evidence  Text, 
and  probable  conjecture,  which  are  grounded  on  a  knowledge 
of  the  history  of  the  Text.  (S)  As  in  all  other  writings  we  Grammar, 
are  to  make  the  grammatical  sense  our  starting-point ;  since 
language  is  common  property,  of  which  every  writer  avails 
himself  according  to  his  individuality,  so  here  as  there,  the  gen- 
eral grammatical  rules  are  to  be  applied.        y)  As  in  all  other  Linguistic 

.  ,        usage, 

writings  the  meaning  of  the  words  must  be  determined  according 

to  the  linguistic  usage  and  the  connection,  and  these  two  things 
form  most  important  helps  to  the  ascertainment  of  the  verbal 
sense.         6)  As  in  all  other  writings  the  connection  is  chiefly 

1  Bibclglaubigen. 


96 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OP  HERMENEUTICS. 


Conjunc- 
tions. 


Accidents 
of  the  verbs, 


Idioms. 


Intention 
of  the  dis- 
course. 


Dialectic 
and  rhetori- 
cal forms. 

Collateral 
informa- 
tion. 


Composi- 
tion and 
object. 


Special  ap- 
plication. 

Language, 

Textual 
criticism. 


Conditioned  by  the  cojijunctlons,  and  these  express,  as  do  also 
the  prepositions,  the  same  relations  as  in  other  Greek  authors, 
c)  The  same  is  to  be  said  with  reference  to  the  cases,  the  moods, 
and  the  tenses  ;  these  are,  as  a  rule,  applied  by  the  New  Tes- 
tament authors  not  otherwise  than  by  the  so-called  profane 
writers.  ^)  Even  certain  Greek  idioms,  as  the  employment  of 
the  Aorist  Indicative  in  conditional  jirotases  and  apodoses, 
where  in  German  the  Pluperfect  Conjunctive  [English  Pluperf. 
Subj.]  is  placed ;  the  use  of  the  Present  Indicative  in  inciden- 
tal propositions, "when  the  principal  verb  stands  in  a  historical 
tense  ;  the  use  of  attraction,  etc.,  are,  as  a  rule,  the  same  in 
the  iTew  Testament  authors  as  in  the  other  Greek  authors,  and 
are  to  be  explained  in  precisely  the  same  way.  rj)  As  in  all 
other  authors,  the  sense  of  a  passage,  outside  of  the  verbal 
sense,  is  conditioned  by  the  connection  and  the  intention  of  the 
discourse,  and  these  are  to  be  ascertained  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment according  to  no  other  rules  than  in  other  writings. 
^)  The  dialectic  and  rhetoriccd  forms  are  in  general  the  same 
in  the  New  Testament  as  in  other  authors,  and  are  to  be  ex- 
plained in  the  same  way.  t)  As  with  all  other  authors,  the 
knowledge  of  the  time,  of  the  country,  and  of  the  peo-ple  of  the 
author,  and  of  the  occasion  of  the  preparation  of  his  writing, 
is  an  important  qualification  for  the  understanding  of  the  same. 
k)  Finally,  the  composition  and  the  object  of  a  biblical  writing 
is  to  be  ascertained  according  to  no  other  methods  than  those 
employed  in  the  case  of  other  writings.  .  The  comparison  of 
Scripture  with  other  ancient  literature  is  far  from  being  an 
impious  and  profane  treatment  of  Scripture  ;  it  is  rather  a 
proof  tliat  one  has  a  high  appreciation  for  the  author  and  his 
work,  and  takes  pains  with  the  latter. 

h)  But  in  fact,  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament 
writings  requires,  on  account  of  its  special  nature,  besides  these 
common  principles,  a  special  attention  and  treatment :  1.  On 
account  of  the  language;  Since,  a)  even  in  Textual  Criticism 
the  usual  procedure  undergoes  a  modification,  in  as  far  as  the 
emendation  of   the  usual  Text  must  be  made  not  so  much 


REVIEW  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  METHODS.      97 

accordiDg  to  the  correct  Greek  as  according  to  the  later  He- 
braistically-colored  Greek  of  the  Hellenistic  authors,  fi)  Just  Hebraisms, 
this  later  and  Orientally-colored  Greek  requires  special  atten- 
tion, in  as  far  as  the  deviations  of  the  same  from  the  pure 
Greek,  as  also  the  consideration  as  well  of  that  which  is  taken 
from  the  Hebraistic  or  Aramaic  idiom  as  that  which  belongs  to 
the  specifically  Christian  element,  is  necessary,  y)  Since,  General  _ 
further,  from  a  linguistic  point  of  view,  as  well  with  regard  to  usage, 
the  general  usage  as  with  regard  to  the  special  linguistic  usage, 
important  variations  occur,  these  also  are  not  to  be  neglected. 
S)  Although  the  sacred  authors  have  thought  more  or  less  log-  Logic, 
ically,  and  there  is  only  one  logic  ;  yet  one  is  not  to  presuppose 
in  them  the  accuracy  and  sharpness  in  their  deductions  and  con- 
clusions, which  we  demand  of  an  accurate  author  ;  since  even 
with  the  Apostle  Paul  and  with  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  who  wrote  most  dialectically  of  all,  inferences 
and  conclusions  are  to  be  found,  which  we  would  not  call  logi- 
cally correct.  c)  Besides  these,  not  altogether  infrequent,  ^^"^"jfg^P*j°j^ 
logical  inaccuracies,  the  —  as  it  were  unconscious  —  conception 
of  the  world  of  the  biblical  authors  exercises  an  influence  upon 
their  thinking ;  by  reason  of  which  their  forms  of  thought  are 
not  always  to  be  measured  by  ours.  So,  e.g.  their  ideas  of 
"  heaven,"  "  world,"  '•  spirit,"  etc.,  their  conceptions  of  the  influ- 
ence of  God  upon  the  world,  and  of  the  relation  between  God 
and  the  world,  are  more  realistic  and  sensuous  than  ours,  and 
we  must  guard  against  importing  into  their  expressions  our 
more  abstract  ideas.  Tliis  borders  already  on  what  belongs  to 
their  religion.  2.  The  other  ground,  on  which  biblical  exegesis  Religion, 
has  to  be  distinguished  from  that  of  the  other  ancient  authors, 
lies  in  the  biblical  and,  more  exactly,  New  Testament  religion. 
a)  Belief  in  one  God,  exalted  above  the  visible  world,  holy,  exer-  Monothe- 
cising  absolute  dominion  over  the  created  world,  and  doing  this 
in  righteousness  and  wisdom,  pervades  the  biblical  authors  to 
such  an  extent,  and  so  differences  them  from  all  so-called  pro- 
fane authors,  that  the  humanistic  interpreter  finds  himself  here 
placed  upon  quite  another  stand-point,  and  from  this  he  must 


98  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 

God,  the      understand  his  author.     B)   Since  God,  accordinof  to  the  Scrip- 
universal  .  r-/  5  o  r 
agent.          tures,  is  the  absolute  subject,  by  whom,  and  for  whose  sake 

everything  happens,  little  or  nothing  is  said  of  the  human  or 
natural  mediate  causes  of  events,  but  so  much  the  more  of 
their  absolute  and  personal  ground,  and  all  things  are  derived 
immediately  from  him  ;  therefore,  the  miracles^  which,  from  the 
biblical  stand-point  are  properly  no  miracles,  because  as  signs 
and  acts  of  God  they  are  in  truth  self-evident,  and  only  in  re- 
lation to  men,  who  are  astonished  at  them  as  at  God's  judging 
and  saving  acts,  are  they  wonderful  events.  This  peculiarity 
requires  quite  especially  a  capacity  on  the  part  of  the  inter- 
preter to   transpose   himself   into  this  way  of  thinking,     y) 

Jewish  ex-   Since  this  faith  in  God  has  been  the  peculiarity  of  a  single 
clusiveness.  .        7   p      t  ,   ,.      . 

people  from  ancient  times,  and  as  national  faith  or  believing 

nationality  or  theocracy  formed   the   ground  of  a  profound 
antagonism  towards  other  people,  the  biblical  interpreter  must 
know  how  to  throw  himself  into  this  conception.    Now  national 
particularism  is  to  a  certain  degree  a  presupposition  with  refer- 
Different      ence  to  all  the  peoples  of  antiquity,  but  the  Israelitish-Christian 
theGreeks   particularism  differs  essentially  from  that  of  the  Greeks  and 
an    lomans.  j;j^Qjjjans  ;  for  while  the  one  discriminates  between  Greek  and 
Barbarian,  the  other  between  Civis  Romanus  and  other  nations, 
as  if  the  former  alone  had  rights ;  the  biblical,  and  so  the  New 
Testament,  authors  discriminate  between  Israel,  as  the  people 
of  God,  and  the  heathen  estranged  from   God  and  living  in 
their  own  wisdom  and  according  to  their  own  choice  (see  on 
the  one  hand,  Rom.  iii.  1,  2  ;  ix.  1-5 :  xi.  21  ;  on  the  other, 
Rom.  i.  18-22  ;  Eph.  ii.  12).     Not   culture   and  civilization, 
but  the  relation  to  God  forms  here  the  ground  of  the  difference. 
Prophecy.    A  special  peculiarity  of  the  Bible  is  prophecy  as  a  conception 
of  history,  supported  by  the  idea  of  the  people  and  the  king- 
dom of  God,  a  relation  of  the  present  to  the  future,  grounded 
in  the  divine  pragmatism;  as  a  result  of  which  a  constant  turn- 
ing to  the  future  as  a  solution  of  the  enigmas  of  the  present, 
N.T.  modi-  and  a  redemption  from  the  theocratic  exigencies.     In  the  New 
fication.       Testament  this  pro2)hetic  hope  undergoes  a  modification  in  as 


REVIEW  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  METHODS.      99 

far  as  the  Promised  One  has  come,  and  the  potentially  mani- 
fested salvation  henceforth  only  goes  to  meet  its  real  and  final 
fulfilment,  —  a  fulfilment  to  be  hoped  for  only  by  means  of 
hard  conflicts  and  calamities.  This  expectation,  partly  of  com- 
ing calamities,  partly  of  the  final  decision  and  redemption,  is  a 
fundamental  characteristic  of  the  New  Testament  authors 
(Revelation  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  25  ;  Luke  xii.  33-53  ;  xxi. ;  1  Thess. 
V.  1-11  ;  1  Cor.  XV.  51  f. ;  Rom.  xiii.  12  ;  James  v.  7,  8  ;  1  Pet. 
V.  7, 17  ;  1  John  ii.  18  ;  Ileb.  x.  37).  With  this  turning  to  the 
ideal  future  the  conception  of  the  transltoriness  and  the  nothing- 
ness of  present  and  visible  things  stands  in  the  closest  connec- 
tion. This  evidently  constitutes  one  of  the  greatest  differences 
between  the  biblical  conception  of  the  world  and  of  life,  and 
that  of  the  so-called  profane  authors ;  so  much  the  more 
pressing  is  the  demand  that  falls  upon  the  biblical  student,  to 
understand  this  conception  of  the  world,  and  not  to  import 
those  human-political  ideas  into  the  Bible  nor  to  interpret  the 
Bible  according  to  these,  e)  Finally,  what  lends  to  all  the  New  Jesus,  the 
Testament  writings  their  specific  tendency  and  coloring  is  the 
still  more  or  less  fresh  impression  and  the  all-inspiring  procla- 
mation of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  of  his  life  and  death.  He  is  the 
central  point  of  the  New  Testament  conceptions.  Not  only  his 
sacred  words  and  his  wonderful  deeds,  but  his  sacred  person- 
ality, his  humiliation  even  unto  death  and  his  exaltation  to  the 
heavenly  life,  constitute  the  determining  principle  of  the  con- 
sciousness.of  the  Apostles  and  their  disciples.  In  connection 
with  this,  then,  stands  also  the  idea,  foreign  to  all  worldly  liter- 
ature, of  a  holy  and  vicarious  suffering  and  death.  In  this 
death  also  the  universal  biblical  idea,  that  whosoever  humbleth 
himself  shall  be  exalted,  finds  its  highest  fulfilment.     0  Ac-  A  living 

nexus 

cordingly,  the  New  Testament  authors  are  conscious  of  a  living 
nexus  between  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly,  between  them- 
selves and  Christ,  which  is  conditioned  through  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  is  a  redemption  from  the  present  wicked  world,  a  state  of 
sonship  to  God,  and  of  believing  joyfulness,  which  rises  above 
the  temporal  adversities  and  calamities  (see  especially  Rom. 


100 


GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF   HERMENEUTICS. 


Which 
claim  is  to 
have  the 
priority  ? 


viii. ;  1  John  iii.  1-3  ;  1  Pet.  i.  3-9).  That  objective  central 
point  of  their  thinking,  and  this  subjective  centre  of  gravity  of 
their  feeling,  difference'  the  New  Testament  authors  so  much 
from  all  earlier  and  contemporaneous  authors,  that  without  full 
consciousness  of  this  difference  there  can  be  no  understanding, 
and  consequently  no  ideal  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament 
books. 

c)  How,  now,  is  the  demand,  that  the  Scriptures  be  inter- 
preted as  another  hooJc^  related  to  the  demand,  that  they  be  ex- 
plained under  recognition  of  their  difference  from  other  books? 
Which  claim  is  entitled  to  the  priority  ?  It  will  be  remembered 
that  Scripture  interpretation  is  only  a  particular  species  of  in- 
terpretation, and  that  the  general  principles  of  interpretation 
must  take  precedence  of  those  that  are  a  sj^ecial  modification 
or  enriching  of  the  same.  If  a  question  arises  with  reference 
to  the  exegetical  procedure,  to  the  common  principles  and  rules 
the  priority  must  be  unconditionally  yielded.  Not  as  if  the 
interpretation  should  be  conducted  first  according  to  these  gen- 
eral principles,  and  then  according  to  the  special  considerations 
and  principles ;  but  the  exegete  is  rather  throughout  to  proceed 
from  these  general  principles,  to  make  use  of  the  special  con- 
siderations only  when  these  latter  make  a  modification  of  the 
former  really  necessary.  Does  a  question  arise  with  reference 
to  the  end  and  aim  of  Scripture  interpretation,  whether  it  be 
a  purely  philological  or  a  theological  one  ;  special  stress  is  to  be 
laid  upon  the  peculiarity  of  the  biblical  writings  and  the  con- 
sequent peculiarity  of  the  exegetical  direction. 


■y)    TJie  Exe'getical  Statement. 

39.    Method  and  Order  of  Procedure. 

In  general  we  must  here  refer  to  what  has  been  said  above 

(§  7)  on  the  exegetical  impartation.     The  exegetical  process 

in  the  case  of  a  biblical  book  or  section  is  essentially  no  other 

Importance  than  in  any  other  ancient  book,     a)  It  is  not  enough  that 

order."        every  individual  thing  that  is  said  be  correct ;  neither  is  it 

enough  that  every  correct  thing  be  said,  but  what  is  correct 


REVIEW  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  METHODS.     101 

must  also  be  said  in  the  right  order,  i.e.  so  that,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible,  one  thing  may  lead  to  another,  and  this  be  conditioned 
by  that.     The  hearer  must  be  so  introduced  into  the  essential 
parts  of  the  investigation,  that  thereby  he  may  be  led  step  by 
step  to  the  object,  and  may  seem  to  have  found  this  at  the 
hand  of  the  interpretei'  himself.     The  object  to  be  attained  is 
the  understanding  of  the  thought  of  the  author.     The  inter- 
preter is,  therefore,  to  begin  with,  giving  a  brief  synopsis  of  the  Synopsis, 
contents  of  the  passage  to  be  explained,  or  if  the  passage  in 
hand  has  been  taken  from  the  midst  of  a  whole,  he  is  to  show 
the  connection.     If  the  passage  to  be  explained  is  of  consider-  connection 
able  extent,  then  are  the  articulation  and  the  grouping  of  the 
whole  to  be  pointed  out.     Having  now  informed  his  hearers  hi 
this  way,  he  may  go  on  to  the  explanation  of  details.    As,  now, 
the  first  condition  to  this  explanation  is,  that  we  have  at  hand 
as  nearly  as  possible  the  ipsissima  verba  auctoris,  the  first  thing  Cntuu^mof 
in  order  will  be,  in  case  the  Text  varies,  to  determine  upon  the 
correct  reading.     The  second  thing  in  order  must  be  the  ascer-  Verbal 
tainment  of  the  grammatical  or  verbal  sense,  where  in  the 
first  place  the  construction  or  ihe  organism  of  the  sentence  — 
first  of  all  the  subject  and  predicate,  then  descending  step  by 
step,  the  subordinate  parts  of  the  sentence  —  comes  up  for  dis- 
cussion.    More  difficult  expressions  are  to  be  explained  accord- 
ing to  linguistic  usage  and  the  connection.     In  the  grammati- 
cal explanation  the  logical  is  naturally  included.     Archaeolo-  Archaeol- 
gical,  historical,  and  geographical  matters  are  first  to  be  ex- 
plained after  the  verbal  sense  has  been  determined;  whether 
the  discussion  is  to  be  detailed  or  not  depends  on  the  difficulty 
and  importance  of  the  matter.     Finally,  on  the  basis  of  the 
verbal  sense,  of  the  logical  and  real  explanation,— the  thought  of  Co^jecdon 
the  author  is  to  be  so  developed  and  illustrated,  that  the  hearer 
may  be  put  in  a  position,  to  think  what  the  author  thought,  and 
to  think  it  as  he  thought  it.     How  rich  and  complete  the  exe-  How  much 
getical  material  is  to  be,  which  the  interpreter  is  to  impart,  toV^em- 
depends  upon  the  hearers  or  the  readers  for  whom  his  explana- 
tion is  designed.     Almost   never   will   he   parade  the  whole 
9* 


102  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES   OF  HERMENEUTICS. 

apparatus  of  his  own  investigation,  but  will  rather  impart  only 
what  is  essential  to  the  securing  of  his  aim.     The  method  that 
begins  with  determining  the  sense,  and  then  for  the  first  time 
brings  in  the  exegetical  material,  is  to  be  unconditionally  char- 
acterized  as   the   inventive   method,  since  in   every  case  the 
result  appears,  as  it  were,  to  have  been  shot  from  a  j^istol,  and 
the  apparatus  afterwards  adduced,  to  be  a  superfluous  ballast. 
Character     The  exegete's  business  is  not.  to  maintain,  but  to  discuss  and  to 
dience.         'prove,     b)  A  principal  consideration  with  the  exegete  must 
The  learned  be  the  nature  of  his  audience.     If  his  explanation  is  designed 
for  the  learned,  which  will  only  be  the  case  when  the  locus  or 
section  under  consideration  is  difficult  or  disputed,  or  the  explan- 
ations that  have  previously  been  given  leave  something  essential 
still  to  be  desired,  the  interpreter  has  much  to  presuppose  as  well- 
known  and  acknowledged  ;  but  he  must  be  so  much  the  more 
exhaustive  and  thorough  where  the  matter  is  disputed  and  he  is 
Learners,     conscious  of  being  able  to  furnish  something  new.     But  if  his 
explanation  be  designed  for  learners  and  students,  the  better 
the  condition  of  the  knowledge  of  his  hearers  is  known  the 
more  successfully  will  he  explain.     To  this  he  must  accommo- 
date himself.     In  any  case  he  cannot  here  presuppose  so  much  ; 
he   must  here  aim-  at  a  certain   completeness,,  and    especially 
must  he  show  through  his  methods  how  exegesis  is  to  be  con- 
ducted, bringing  out  occasionally  a  hermeneutical  rule  or  call- 
ing attention  to  a  hermeneutical  fault  that  happens  to  come 
Class  exer-  before  him.     If  there  are  exercises  of  young  exegetes  before 
*^^^'  teachers,  it  should  be  seen  to  that  the  most  important  exegetical 

materials  be  conscientiously  used,  that  the  exegetical  judgment 
have  been  formed  and  be  formed,  that  the  one  explaining 
select  from  the  materials  used  or  discovered  for  himself,  and 
impart  what  is  of  imj^ortance.  Exegetical  talent  is  shown 
pre-eminently  in  this  :  that  the  judgment  in  individual  matters 
is  independent,  and  the  whole  explanation  is  thorough,  clear, 
and  transparent,  c)  Finally,  the  exegetical  method  is  deter- 
Object  in  mined  through  the  object  which  one  has  in  view.  This  may, 
naturally,  be  either  purely  exegetical  or  it  may  be  critical,  dog- 


view. 


REVIEW   OF  THE   EXEGETICAL  METHODS.  103 

matical,  or  practical.  If  the  object  be  purely  exegetical,  the 
case  is  met  by  simply  what  was  said  under  a).  Is  the  object  a  CriticaL 
critical  investigation,  the  normal  exegetical  process  undergoes 
a  modification  only  in  as  far  as  the  explanation  has  to  hold  in 
view  that  chiefly,  which  may  throw  light  upon  the  question 
concerning  genuineness,  authenticity,  and  the  like ;  and  hence, 
the  principal  attention  is  to  be  directed  to  the  linguistic  charac- 
ter, to  the  diction,  to  the  historical  marks,  to  the  circle  of 
thought,  so  far  as  this  furnishes  points  of  comparison.  If,  on  Dogmatic, 
the  other  hand,  the  object  be  a  dogmatic  one,  whether  it  be  the 
ascertainment  of  the  doctrinal  idea  of  the  given  author  or  of 
part  of  the  same;  or  the  biblical  proof  and  grounding  of  a 
doctrinal  proposition,  the  passages  under  discussion  are  to  be 
first  explained  individually  according  to  the  verbal  sense,  the 
connection  and  the  intention,  and  then  they  are  to  be  compared 
with  each  other.  The  chief  attention  is  to  be  directed  to  the 
intention  of  the  author.  If,  finally,  the  object  be  a  practical  PracticaL 
one,  all  learned  apparatus  should,  of  course,  be  dispensed  with. 
At  the  same  time  it  will  depend  upon  the*  education  of  the 
hearers,  how  much  or  how  little  general  knowledge  is  to  be 
presupposed  in  them,  how  much  or  how  little  capacity  for 
thought  is  to  be  expected  of  them.  But  whatever  may  be  the 
degree  of  culture  in  the  hearers,  the  practical  interpreter  must 
always  direct  his  attention  to  the  religious  contents  and  kernel, 
must  have  had  an  inner  experience  of  the  relation  thereof  to 
human  life,  and  must  know  how  to  present  it  clearly  and  im- 
pressively to  others.  Whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  the  pub- 
lic for  which  the  explanation  is  designed,  and  whatever  may  be 
the  object  of  the  explanation,  the  exegete  can  never  dispense  Seif-prepa- 
withy  at  least,  what  is  essential  to  previous  investigation  of  his 
own,  viz.  textual  criticism,  verbal  explanation,  explanation  of 
the  subject-matter,  and  logical  explanation,  together  with  reli- 
gious comprehension  of  the  thought. 


PART   II 


THE 


SINGLE  OPERATIONS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE 
INTERPRETER. 

1.   The  Criticisin  of  the  Text} 

I.   General  View. 

From  the  history  of  the  New  Testament  literature,  and 
especially  from  the  history  of  the  text  we  learn  how,  after  the 
Mode  of  early  loss  of  the  autographs,  the  multiplication  of  manuscripts 
tionof  Mss.  was  at  first  performed  without  diplomatic  acc\iracy,  but  later 
passed  through  purging  hands,  which,  however,  aimed  in  no 
way  merely  at  the  restoration  of  the  original.  Involuntary 
oversights  and  true  or  supposed  emendations  on  linguistic, 
dogmatic,  or  ritualistic  grounds,  found  place  and  have  so  in- 
creased with  time,  that  at  last  the  number  of  variations 
amounted  to  many  thousands.  These  are,  indeed,  in  part  only 
orthographical  or,  in  general,  not  such  as  greatly  to  affect  the 
sense ;  but  in  part    they    are  essential,    and    of   great  impor- 

1  The  best  helps  for  the  textual  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  are : 
Tischendorf,  Editio  VIII  Critica  Major  (with  Prolewmena  of  the  Ed. VII.). 
This  work  furnishes  abundant  materials;  though  Tischendorf 's  own  opin- 
ions are  not  particularly  valuable.  In  many  instances  he  seems  to  follow 
almost  blindly  the  readings  of  his  darlin.<r  Codex  Sinaiticus;  Trcgelles, 
New  Testament,  —  not  so  rich  in  materials  as  Tischendorf,  but  more 
trustworthy  as  a  text;  Scrivener,  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament  (2d  ed.);  Hammond,  Textual  Criticism  applied  to  the  New 
Testament;  Gardiner,  in  the  liibliotheca  Sacra  for  187"),  Art.  Textual 
Criticism,  since  published  in  book  form,  and  as  an  Appendix  to  his  Greek 
Harmony  of  the  Gospels.  —  Tu. 
104 


THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE  TEXT.  105 

tance  to  the  sense.  Had  we  only  one  manuscript  which  ^«^^soiute 
reached  back  nearly  to  the  Apostolic  or  the  post- Apostolic 
times,  we  should  have  simply  to  hold  to  this ;  but  such  does  not 
exist.  We  know  that  the  oldest  manuscripts  which  we  possess 
date  from  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  Accordingly,  it  JJ^  tS? 
would  be  important  to  have  monuments  of  the  text  from  ear- 
lier times.  Such  have  been  preserved  in  some  old  translations, 
as,  e.g.  in  the  Peschito,  in  the  Egyptian  translations,  and  in 
the  ancient  Itala.^  But,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  transla- 
tions are  only  mediate  witnesses  of  the  text  of  their  time,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  vitiating  circumstance  that  translations  them- 
selves, as  especially  the  Itala,  have  come  down  to  us  in  cor- 
rupted texts.  The  citations  of  those  Church  Fathers,  that  are  J^jsions^  ^ 
more  ancient  than  our  oldest  manuscripts,  seem  to  furnish  a 
more  certain  attestation  ;  but  many  of  these  citations  are  not 
verbally  accurate  ;  only  the  exegetes  among  them,  especially 
Origen  and  Chrysostom,  have  cited  verbally.     But  already  in 

tho'^^e  ancient  times  the  variations  are  not  unimportant.    At  the  Most  im- 

.  ,       o'      ..,•      portant 

same  time  the  ancient  manuscripts,  as  the  Vatican,  the  bmaitic,  mss. 

the  Alexandrine,  the  Cantabrigian,  etc.,  are  always  of  great 
weight,  and  where  they  agree  among  themselves,  or  where 
some  principal  codices  are  supported  by  still  other  testimonies, 
as  by  the  Peschito,  by  the  best  Codd.  of  the  Vulgate,  or  by 
Orin-en,  the  reading  is  to  be  regarded  as  assured. 

2.    Means  of  attaining  to  the  Original  Text. 
This   is   by   no    means    frequently   the    case,  however,   but 
often  the  preponderance  of  testimonies  is  not  decisive.    On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  of  great  consequence,  if  a  reading  is  authenti- 
cated through  testimonies  of  different  hinds,  as  e.g.  by  Alexan-  ^j^Jj^^s^ses^ 
drine,  Constantinopolitan,  and  Western,  or  if  one  or  two  impor-  kinds. 

1  Compare  on  the  Versions  the  excellent  Articles  in  Smith's  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible,  on  the  Aethiopic,  Arabic,  Armenian,  Egyptian,  Gothic, 
and  Syriac  versions,  by  Tregelles;  on  the  Latin  versions  by  Westcott.  See 
also  tiie  Prolegomena  of  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  to  their  editions  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament,  and  the  works  on  Textual  Criticism  referred  to 
ahove.  References  to  all  the  valuable  literature  up  to  the  time  of  publica- 
tion, will  be  found  in  the  Articles  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  refer- 
vcd  to.  —  Tr. 


106  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

tant  manuscripts  are  supported  by  one  or  more  versions,  or  by 
quotations  from  the  Fathers.  Yet  even  thus  the  desired  certainty 
is  often  not  attained,  since  the  distinction  between  an  Alexan- 
drine, Constantinopolitan,  and  Occidental  text  cannot  be  rigidly 
carried  through,  and  since  not  seldom  agreements  stand  against 

Critical  agreements.  Therefore,  in  most  cases,  critical  conjecture  is 
iudisj^ensable  ;  only  this  must  be  based  upon  knowledge  of  the 
history  of  the  text,  and  especially  of  the  causes  of  the  rise  of 
false  readings.  The  emendation  of  the  text  must,  in  a  certain 
measure,  be  the  reverse  of  the  rise  of  the  traditional  (cor- 
rupted) text,  i.e.  the  criticism  of  the  text  must  draw  from  the 
readings  at  hand  —  having  regard  to  the  influences  which  then 
contributed  to  the  alteration  of  the  text  —  a  conclusion  upon  the 
probably  original  reading.  Upon  the  probably  original  read- 
ing !  since  we  are  never  to  forget  that  we  have  to  do  here  not 
with  exact  science,  but  in  most  cases  only  with  conjectures 
or  grounds  of  probability,  and  that  the  results  of  our  efforts 
take  in  the  whole  scale  of  historical  certainty  even  to  the  com- 
plete non  liquet.  The  principles  to  be  followed  in  this  con- 
jectural criticism  are  set  forth  in  Prolegomena  or  Excursuses  to 
all  critical  editions  from  Griesbach  to  Tischendorf,  and,  indeed. 

Textual       it  is  self-evident  that  the  more,  as  well  the  apparatus  as  the 

Criticism  a    .      .    ,  ^    .    ^        ,  .      .    ,         .  ,  •,  ^^t 

progressive  msight  mto  the  prmciples  improves,  the  more  accurately  will 
they  be  formulated.  In  the  brief  guide  to  textual  criticism, 
which   we   here   give,   these    principles    cannot   be   disj^ensed 

Invoiun-      with.     The  corruptions  of  the   text  are,  a)  involuntary,  i.e. 

tions.  such  as  have  arisen  turough  aberration  of  the  eye  or  imperfect 

hearing ;  here  belong  all  kinds  of  errors  of  the  pen,  especially 
the  permutations  of  ci  and  t,  of  at  and  €,  etc.,  that  arose 
through  Itacism ;  ^  also  the  oversights  that  have  arisen  through 

1  By  Itacism  is  meant  the  corruplion  and  assimilation  of  the  vowel 
sounds  which  certainly  began  not  very  lonj^  after  the  bcginninj;  of  the 
Christian  era,  and  which  resulted  in  the  assimilation  of  i,  v,  v,  et,  oi,  vi, 
as  the  continental  i,  and  of  e  and  ai  as  the  continental  ^.  This  system  is 
seen  in  its  full  development  in  the  ancient  S\Tiac  versions  in  the  trans- 
ference of  proper  names,  etc.,  and  is  that  uow  followed  in  Romaic.or 
Modem  Greek.    The  late  Dr.  H.  13.  Hackett  was  of  the  opinion  that  this 


THE   CRITICISM   OP  THE   TEXT.  107 

the  Scriptio  continua  and  the  Iloinoioteleuton,  the  errors  that 

have  arisen  from  palaeographic  causes,  e.g.  the  confoundino-  of 

©  and  O,  KC  {Kvpios)  and  KC  (/catpos),  etc.     As  exami^les  of  Examples: 

such  invokintarj  variations  we  ad(kice  only  the  following :  .  Of 

those  that  have  arisen  from  Itacism,  Matt.  xi.  2G  (eratpot?  and  From 

iT€f)oi<i)  ;  Matt,  xxvii.  60  (Kaii/a)  and  K€vio)  ;   Rom.  ii.  17  (et  Se 

and  iSe)  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  1  (et  fMij  and  y  ^.q)  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  3  (xp^o-ro's 

and  Xpio-r 09).     Of  those  that  have  arisen  from  Ilomoioteleu- From  Ho- 
.1  •  •  P     1        ^  1  „   -, ,  moioteleu- 

ton,  the  repetition  of  the  first  member  of  Matt.  x.  23  ;  the  ton. 

omission   or  transposition  of  1  Cor.  xv.  26  ;  the  omission  of 
Iv  dKaracTTao-tats  in  2  Cor,  vi.  5.     From  palaeographic  abbre-  From  ab-  ■ 
viation,  the  confounding  of  69  and  Oeos  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  the  con-  ^'^^''^^^^''"• 
founding  of  to)  Kupio)  SovXeuoires  and  r.   /catpo)  hovX.  in  Rom. 
xii.  W^  et  al.     Cf.  for  other  examples,  Reuss,  "  History  of  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures,"  §  364.    In  reference  to  these  acci- 
dental corruptions  scarcely  any  rules  can  be  given,  yet  it  is  to 
be  said  that  a  meaningless  reading  must  be  regarded  as  a  false  Meaning- 
reading,  and  as  having  arisen  through  oversight ;  that  readings  SLIT  ^^^ 
which  yield  indeed  a  sense,  are  yet  to  be  regarded  as  exception- 
able, if  they  are  supported  by  one  manuscript  only,  or  by  few 
testimonies,  and  these  of  subordinate  authority,    h)  Arhitrary  Arbitrary 
alterations  of  the  text.     First  of  all  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  *'^*^''^*'^"^- 
the  first  centuries  there  was  for  a  long  time  not  that  importance 
attached  to  the  exact  reproduction  of  the  text  as  later,  that,  e.g. 
there  was  no  hesitation  about  writing  first  in  the  margin,  and  Incorpora- 
then  incorporating  into  the  text  itself  certain  traditional  ad-  jr/n^ire^d^' 
ditions,  as  John  v.  4 ;  vii.  53 ;  viii.  11 ,  Mark  xvi.  9  £f. ;  as  also  ^^^^' 
glosses  or  liturgical  formulae,  or  doxologies,  the  word  'Aya>ji/, 
and  such  like.     Later,  when  the  text  came  to  be  dealt  with 
more  accurately,  the  authority  of  the  church  had  already  be- 
come so  great  that  such  readings  as  were  more  favorable  to  the 
opinion  and  practice  of  the  church  were  preferred  and  diffused, 

pronunciation  represents  move  accurately  than  any  other  that  followed  by 
the  sacred  writers  themselves;  accordingly,  he  introduced  it  into  his 
classes.  So  far  as  I  can  learn,  however,  this  system  has  not  met  with  the 
approval  of  scholars  in  general,  and  it  is  fraught  with  so  many  disadvan- 
tages that  ii  cannot  be  recommended.  —  Tk. 


108  SINGLE    OPERATIONS   OP   THE   INTERPRETER. 

at  the  expense  of  those  that  seemed  rather  to  favor  an  heretical 
view  ;  although  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  heretics  on  their 

Harmony,  side  did  the  same.  Very  frequently,  especially  in  the  Gospels, 
differences  are  equalized  in  the  interest  of  harmony,  just  as 
frequently  inaccurate  and  free  citations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (the  LXX)  are  made  more  conformable  to  the  language 
of  the  LXX.  And  not  in  material  points  alone,  but  also  in 
formal  matters,  the  so-called  emendations  were  undertaken,  and 

Grammar,  expressions  that  appeared  to  be  bad  Greek  were  replaced  with 
more  correct. 

3.   Tha  IVSo3t  Important  Critical  Helps. 

Tliis  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  text  is,  indeed,  an  indis- 
pensable condition  of  textual  criticism ;  but  it  must  be  com- 
bined with  the  hnoxdedge  of  the  most  important  critical  helps, 
Sources  of  and  of  their  relative  value.  On  this  subject  the  Prolegomena 
m  orma  ion  .^  Qriesbach,  Scholz,  and  Tischendorf,  as  also  the  so-called 
hand-books  of  Isagogics  give  information.  The  necessity  for 
the  consultation  and  knowledge  of  these  helps  rests  upon  the 
fact,  that  in  general  no  literary-historical  investigation  is  pos- 
sible without  knowledge  and  criticism  of  the  sources.  Again, 
it  is  not  to  be  assumed,  that  a  genuine  reading  has  been  entirely 
lost,  and  has  not  been  preserved  in  some  ancient  witness  or 
Mostimpor-  Other.  But  it  is  necessary  in  the  mass  of  manuscripts  and 
other  witnesses,  to  know  the  most  important,  for  which  we 
refer  to  the  helps  mentioned  above,  and  esj^ecially  to  the  Pro- 
legomena to  Tischendorf 's  seventh  critical  edition.  In  these 
Prolegomena  attention  is  called  to  the  importance  of  the  Codd. 
Vaticanus  (B),  which  however  is  defective  from  Heb.  ix.  14 
onwards;  of  the  Sina'iticus  (j<),  the  Alexandrinus  (A),  Eph- 
raemi  (C),  very  defective,  Cantabrigcnsis-  (D),  for  the  Pauline 
Epistles  also  the  Cod.  Claromont.  (D  Paris.)  ;  then  also  to  the 
importance  of  the  most  ancient  versions  as  the  Peschito,  the  two 
Egyptian,  the  Vulgate,  of  which  Codd.  Amiat.^  and  Fuldens. 
are  the  oldest  and  most  important ;  and,  finally,  to  the  citations 

1  A  p:oo(l  edition  of  the  Cod.  Amiatinus,  edited  by  Tischendorf,  has 
appeared.  —  Tn. 


THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE   TEXT.  109 

of  Origen.  But  side  by  side  with  these  most  imj^ortant  critical 
attestations,  there  are  others  in  no  way  to  be  neglected,  and 
even  the  Minuscule  [Cursive]  manuscripts  may  be  of  value  Cursives, 
for  the  support  of  a  reading.^  But,  finally,  it  is  indispensable 
to  know  the  nature  and  the  relative  critical  worth  of  the  most 
important  manuscripts,  on  which  subject  also  the  helps  referred 
to  contain  what  is  necessary.  We  may  only  call  attention  here 
to  the  facts,  that  the  Cod.Vaticanus,  the  most  important  of  all,^ 
is  free  from  a  multitude  of  additions  which  most  of  the  later 
manuscripts  contain,  and  that  in  a  linguistic  point  of  view  it  is 
characterized  by  a  certain  preference  for  the  Perfect  (instead 
of  the  Aorist)  ;  that  the  Cod.  Sinaiticus  as  regards  the  omis- 
sion of  the  later  additions,  as  also  in  the  majority  of  the  read- 
ings, agrees' with  the  Vat.,  but  is  disfigured  by  a  host  of  errors 
of  the  pen.  The  Cod.  Cantabrigensis,  important  for  the  Gos- 
pels and  the  Acts,  and  containing  a  very  ancient  and  as  yet 
inedited  text,  contains  here  and  there  peculiar  additions,  among 
which  that  to  Luke  vi.  4  is  the  most  noteworthy.  Codd.  Vat. 
and  Sinait.  have  an  important  support  in  the  fact  that  they  very 
frequently  agree  with  the  citations  of  Origen.  From  these  con-  critical 
siderations  we  deduce  the  following  critical  rules  :  1.  No  crit-  ^^^^^' 
ical  conjecture  is  admissible^  that  is  7iot  supported  hy  at  hast 
one  ancient  attestation.  2.  The  most  ancient  readings,  even 
if  accredited  hy  few  attestations,  deserve,  as  a  ride,  the  prefer- 
ence over  later  readings,  even  though  more  strongly  accredited.'^ 
Si  The  more  these  readings  are  supjiorted  by  attestations  of  a 
different  kind  (as  Codices,  Versions,  and  Fathers),  or  by  testi- 
monies of  different  origin  (as,  e.g.  Oriental  and  Occidental), 
the  more  assured  they  are. 

1  The  Mss.  noticed  above  >{ABCD,  and  many  others  are  Avi-itten  in 
]ar<2;e  characters  like  capitals,  and  are  called  Uncials  {uncia,  an  inch).  This 
method  of  Avriting  was  irradually  superseded  by  the  Cursive,  correspond- 
in^j;  with  the  characters  used  in  printed  Greek  texts.  These  Cursive  mss. 
though  very  late,  are  often  valuable  from  the  fact  that  they  may  have 
))een  copied  accurately  from  a  very  ancient  Uncial,  and  may,  therefore, 
represent  an  earlier  text  than  some  of  the  later  Uncials  themselves.  — Tr. 

^  Tills  view  was  strontrlj'  contested  by  Tischendorf,  who  regarded  the 
Cod.  Sinaiticus  as  the  most  important  of  all.  —  Tb. 
10 


110         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 


4.   The  Critical  Prccedurei 

The  critical  'procedure  must,  accordingly,  consist  partly  in 
consultation  and  comparison  of  the  attestations,  partly  in  con- 
Conjecture,  jecture  to  be  arrived  at  by  way  of  exegesis.  The  latter  is  the 
more  necessary,  the  less  decisive  the  external  confirmation  is. 
This  may  be  seen  first  of  all  in  those  examples,  in  which  inter- 
IJohnv.  7.  polation  can  be  proved  with  great  probability.  1  John  v.  7 
('•  the  three  witnesses  in  heaven ")  has  against  it  all  Greek 
Codd.,witli  the  exception  of  three  Codd.  of  the  period  from  the 
eleventh  to  the  sixteenth  century,  all  ancient  versions  even  the 
more  ancient  Codd.  of  the  Vulg.  (as  particularly  the  Araiat.  and 
the  Fuld.),  all  the  Greek  Fathers  until  in  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury, and  all  the  Latin  Fathers  to  Vigilius  of  Thapsus.  This 
unanimity  raises  the  spuriousness  of  these  words  to  absolute 
certainty,  and  makes  all  conjectural  criticism  superfluous.  The 
interpolation  arose  in  the  Latin  Church,  probably  in  the  sixth 
century ;  Vigilius  of  Thapsus  is  the  first  who  cites  it,  and 
thence  it  passed  over  into  the  more  modern  Codd.  of  the  Vul- 
gate, and  into  several  very  late  manuscripts,  whence  it  was 
received  into  the  editions  of  R.  Stephanus  and  the  Elzevirs. 
Had  this  interpolation  a  dogmatic  ground,  so  especially  the 
Matt.  vj.  13.  Doxology,  Matt.  vi.  13,  proceeded  from  a  liturgical  ground.  It 
is  wanting  in  Codd.  Vat.,  Sinait.,  Cantabr.,  and  several  Minusc, 
in  several  Verss.,  as  e.g.  in  the  Vulg.(Codd.  Amiat.,  Fuld.,  etal.), 
*  and  in  several  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers.  Besides  this,  it  is 
attested  through  scholia  to  many  manuscripts,  that  these  words 
are  wanting  in  many  ancient  Codices.  The  spuriousness  of 
this  Doxology  is,  therefore,  by  so  much  the  more  indubitable 
as  its  rise  is  explicable.  Far  more  important  is  the  absence  of 
Mark  xvi.     Mark  xvi.  9-20  in  Codd.  Vat.  and   Sinait.,    to  which  is  to  be 

9-20 

added  the  fact  that  Cod.  D.  gives  an  entirely  different  and 
Cod.  L.  again  still  a  different  text  of  this  section  from  the 
Textus  Receptcis.  To  this,  moreover,  we  are  to  add  the  great 
host  of  variations  that  even  those  manuscripts  contain,  which 
have  this  passage  in  substantially  the  same  form  with  the  Ed. 
Recepta.     Still  further,  Euscbius  (Ad  Marinum  Ep.  A.  Mai. 


THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE   TEXT.  Ill 

nov.  collect.  IV.),  Jerome  (Ep.  ad  Iledibiam,  Ep.  CXX.),  and 
others,  testify  to  the  absence  of  this  section  in  the  most  accurate, 
in  the  greatest  number,  of  the  Greek  manuscripts.  The  oldest 
witness,  who  has  this  conclusion,  is  Irenaeus ;  after  him  it  is  found 
in  Codd.  AC(D)EGHK(L)MS  etc.,  and  in  the  following 
Verss. :  in  the  ancient  Syriac  Yerss.,  the  Coptic,  the  Vulg.,  the 
Gothic  (which,  however,  is  defective  from  vs.  12  onwards).  It 
is  accordingly  not  certain,  but  very  probable,  that  this  appendix 
did  not  proceed  from  Mark  himself ;  ^  on  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  very  ancient,  and  must  date  back  at  least  into  the 
second  century.  It  owes  its  origin  probably  to  a  legend  from 
the  multiform  history  of  the  resurrection.  A  similar  origin,  it 
is  in  the  highest  degree  probable,  has  the  account  of  the  adul- 
teress, John  vii.  53-viii.  11.  In  the  Codd.  Vat.  and  Sinait.  John  vii.  63 
it  is  altogether  wanting ;  in  A  and  C  some  leaves  are  wanting 
along  here  ;  but  from  an  accurate  estimate  it  appears  that  it  can- 
not have  been  contained  in  these."  Still  other  mss.,  as  L  and  A 
(Sangall.),  have  instead  of  this  an  empty  space.  Many  others 
which  have  the  section,  characterize  •  it  as  doubtful.  Among 
the  versions,  it  is  wanting  in  most  manuscripts  of  the  Peschito, 
in  several  of  the  Philoxenian,  and  in  the  Gothic.  Finally, 
most  of  the  Fathers  pass  over  the  section  :  Origen,  ApoUinaris, 
Theod.  Mops.,  Chrysost.,  et  al.  On  the  other  hand,  the  account 
is  sustained  by  Codd.  KM,  and  not  a  few  others  ;  further  by 
Rufinus,  perhaps  also  already  by  Papias,  if  the  notice  of  Euse- 
bius  (Hist.  Eccl.  III.  39),  eKr€(9etTat  8e  kol  aXXrjv  laTopiav  Trcpl 
yvvaLKo<s  inl  7ro/\Xats  ajjLapTLaL<i  SLaf3€l3Xr]&€Lo-r]s  £~t  tov  Kvpiov,  ^v 
TO  fca^'  *E/?patoi;s  ivayyiXiov  Trcpte^^ct,  has  reference  to  this  ; 
which,  indeed,  is  doubtful,  for  the  reason  that  the  history 
to  which  he  alludes  is  taken  from  the  '•  Gosnel  accordinor  to 

■i.  o 

the  Hebrews."     To  these  external  grounds  of  doubt  may  be 
added  two  internal  grounds, —  the  disproportionate  multitude  of 

1  For  an  able  defense  of  the  genuineness  of  these  verses,  see  Bleek, 
Synoptische  Erldanmg,  in  loco.  See  also  a  monograph  on  the  subject  by 
Burgon,  and  an  Article  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Broadus,  in  the  Baptist  Quarterly  for 
18G9.— Tr. 


112  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

Tariations  and  the  im-Johannic  language  {eTropevOr},  opBpov  vs. 
TTpwi,  Xaos  vs.  6-)(Xo^,  ypa/x/xarctg,  StSacTKaXc  vs.  'Pay8/3t,  etc.,  and 
such  forms  of  speech  as  KaOtcra^  iStSaa-Kcv  avTovs,  Iva  exoicnv 
KaT-qyopiav.  •  .  .  ,  cts  ko.B^  ct"?,  o-tto,  twv  7rp€al3vT€p(DV  cojs  twv 
ccrxaTwv,  etc.).  But  how  can  this  section  have  come  here  into 
the  text  ?  Probably  in  much  the  same  way  as  Mark  xvi.  9  ff., 
viz.  as  a  piece  of  the  still  somewhat  plastic  Gospel  tradition. 

John  V.  4.  Xhe  interpolation  John  v.  4  (of  the  angel  at  the  pool  of  Beth- 
esda),  which  is  not  found  in  Codd.  Yat.,  Sinait.,  Ephraemi 
(prima  manu),^  Cantabrig,,  and  in  several  ancient  versions,  has 

Kom.viii.l.  also  a  legendary  origin.  The  case  is  different  with  Rom. 
viii.  1,  where  the  editions  of  Stephanus  and  the  Elzevirs  read 
fiT]  Kara  adpKa  Trepntarova-Lv,  uXXa  Kara  irvev/xa.  But  these 
words  are  wanting  in  Codd.  Vat.,  Sinait.,  Ephr.  (prima  manu), 
et  al.,  and  further  in  several  versions.  Codd.  Alexandr.  etClarom. 
(secunda  manu),  the  Peschito,  the  Vulg.,  the  Gothic,  etc.,  have 
only  iJLT]  Kara  crdpKa  irepLTraTova-Lv,  Clarom.  (tertia,  manu),  Basil, 
and  many  others,  have  the  ivhole  addition.  The  addition  is  evi- 
dently a  gloss,  having  its  origin  in  the  reflection  that  verse  1 
might  be  practically  dangerous,  if  to  the  words  ovSkv  dpa  vvv 
KaTOLKpL/jLa  a  limitation  were  not  added.  Yet  it  might  be  that  it 
was  a  mere  oversight  occasioned  by  a  deviation  of  the  eye  upon 

Matt.  V.  11.  verse  4  (?).  It  is  more  uncertain  whether  ij/cvSofxevoL  in  Matt. 
V.  11  is  a  mere  gloss.  Judged  according  to  the  grounds  of  in- 
ternal probability,  it  must  be  regarded  as  such,  since  it  removes 
the  moral  stuml)ling-block  of  the  briefer  reading,  as  if  everi/ 
wicked,  lying  mouth  were  a  joyful  proof  of  our  belonging  to 
the  kingdom  of  God.  But  since  it  is  supported  by  the  most 
important  manuscripts,  as  the  Yat.,  Sinait.,  Ephr.,  and  many 
others,  as  well  as  by  very  ancient  Yerss.,  as  both  the  Syriac  and 
both  the  Latin,  it  is  ventured  to  vindicate  this  reading.     With 

Matt.  V.  22.  more  ground  is  in  Matt.  v.  22  the  word  et/cr},  although  very 
well  attested  by  Codd.,  Yerss.,  and  Fathers,  regarded  as  a  gloss, 

1  Many  of  the  most  ancient  mss.  have  been  several  times  renewed 
(havinir  faded)  and  corrected.  Such  experts  as  Tischcndorf  and  Tregelles 
havchccn  able  by  great  diligence  to  distinguish  the  original  mss.  from  the 
corrections,  and  all  of  the  latter  from  one  another.  —  Tr. 


THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE  TEXT.  113 

since  in  addition  to  the  fact  that  the  shorter  reading  makes  the 
impression  of  representing  all  anger  as  worthy  of  condemna- 
tion, whereas  the  longer  reading  removes  this  offence,  ei/o}  is 
wanting  in  Codd.  Vat.  and  Sinait.,  et  al.,  in  almost  all  manu- 
scripts of  the  Vulg.,  also  in  Origen  and  some  other  ancient 
Fathers  ;  and  some  Greek  and  Latin  witnesses  say  expressly 
that  ctK^  does  not  stand  in  the  old  and  accurate  manuscripts. 
This  word  is,  therefore,  with  great  probability  to  be  regarded 
as  a  gloss.  What  has  been  said  is  to  be  summed  up  in  the 
following  critical  princifles :  1)  we  are  to  hold  every  passage  C^^tjcai^g 
to  be  a  traditional  addition,  which  a)  is  omitted  or  in  a  positive 
manner  designated  as  doubtful  by  the  oldest  and  most  impor- 
tant witnesses ;  if  it  /3)  presents  an  extraordmary  number  of 
variations ;  y)  if  it  shows  a  break,  interrupts  the  connection, 
or  at  least  could  be  omitted  without  injuring  the  connection ; 
and  if,  again,  8)  it  shows  a  linguistic  character  deviating  from 
that  of  the  author  under  consideration.  2)  A  word  or  sen- 
tence is  to  be  regarded  as  a  gloss,  if  the  expression  under  con- 
sideration, a)  has  not  in  its  favor  the  oldest  and  best  witnesses  ; 
and  if,  indeed,  it  is  expressly  attested  that  it  is  not  found  in 
the  oldest  and  most  accurate-  manuscripts  ;  P)  if  it  removes  a 
moral  or  dogmatic  stumbling-block,  and  y)  if  it  explains  and 
alleviates  a  difficult  thought.  Therefore,  in  such  a  case,  even 
with  stronger  extern  al  confirmation,  the  more  offensive  or  harder 
reading  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  inoffensive  and  easier. 

5.   Additional  Examples. 

Cf.  further  the  variations  in  John  vii.  8  and  1  Cor.  xv.  51.  Johnvii.8. 
In  the  first  passage  the  words  run  according  to  the  ordinary 
text :  v/Act?  avdl3r}T€  ek  rrjv  ioprrjv,  eyoj  outtoj  avafiaivoi  eh  r.  iopr. 
ravT.  This  reading  has  exceedingly  strong  confirmation,  since 
the  passage  runs  thus  in  Codd.  Vat.,  Basil.,  and  most  of  the 
other  Uncials ;  and  to  these  are  to  be  added  some  manuscripts 
of  the  Vulg.,  the  Gothic,  Upper  Egyptian,  and  other  versions. 
But  in  Codd.  Sinait.,  Cantabr.,  and  some  others,  also  in  many 
versions,  as  in  most  Codd.  of  the  Vulg.,  in  the  Lower  Egyp- 
tian, in  the  Syriac  according  to  Cureton,  stands  ovk  dm^atVo) . . . ; 
10* 


114         SINGLE  OPERATIONS   OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

and  this  reading  is  also  attested  by  Jel'ome,  who  mentions 
(Adv.  Pelag.  2,  17),  that  Porphyry,  supported  by  this  passage, 
has  accused  Jesus  of  inconsistency  ;  further  by  Epiphanius  and 
Chrysostom,  who,  however,  cites  the  passage  as  if  it  read  ovk 
ava/3ad'oj  vvv  . . .  According  to  the  reading  ovk  u.vajS.  the 
jjassage  is  very  difficult,  and  the  conduct  of  Jesus  very  enig- 
matical ;  even  the  Fathers  mentioned  have  striven  to  vindicate 
Jesus  from  the  appearance  of  wavering.  How  now  would  this 
difficult  and  offensive  reading  have  arisen  if  ovirio  had  been  the 
original  ?  On  the  other  hand,  the  reading  ovttu)  is  quite  easily 
explained,  precisely  from  the  offence  which  the  ovk  avajS.  coll. 
lCor.xv.5l.  with  verse  10  must  have  occasioned.  1  Cor.  xv.  51  runs  ac- 
cording to  the  ordinary  text  thus  :  Trdvres  ixkv  ov  KOLix-rjOrja-ofxeOa, 
TTCLvres  Sk  dWayrjo-ofjieOa,  which  reading  is  confirmed  by  the 
Vat.,  Clarom.  (by  the  second  hand),  and  many  others,  also 
by  both  Syriac  Verss.,  the  Coptic,  Aethiopic,  Gothic,  and  by 
several  ancient  Fathers  and  exegetes.  On  the  other  hand 
(so  Griesbach  in  the  margin  and  Lachmann),  the  Codd. 
Sinait.,  Alexandr.,  Ephr.,  Boerner.,  have  the  passage  in  the 
following  form  :  Travrc?  fxev  KOiixrjOrjcrofJiiOa,  ov  Travres  Se  dAA.a- 
yrja-ofxiOa,  for  which  reading  also  many  Fathers  witness.  Here 
likewise,  now,  the  question  arises  :  Which  reading  as  to  its 
origin  is  easier  to  explain  ?  Evidently  the  latter,  since  the 
former  must  be  difficult  and  offensive,  for  the  reason  that  the 
result  seemed  to  contradict  the  words  of  the  Apostle.  That, 
furthermore,  in  order  to  remove  this  offence,  there  was  much 
ado  made  about  the  correction,  the  many  little  deviations  bear 
witness,  of  which  the  most  important  is,  that  Origen  in  the 
passage  gives  merely  the  words :  7rai/T€s  KoifxyjOrjaofxeOa.  Here, 
therefore,  the  Received  Text  (so  alsoTischendorf)  has  evidently 
the  original.  If  in  these  passages  the  alteration  of  the  text 
owes  its  origin  to  attempts  to  remove  a  religious  stumbling- 
Geojrraphi-  block,  there  are  passages  where  it  has  been  attempted  to  re- 
toricai  dit-'  move  geographical  or  historical  difficulties.  The  most  familiar 
j^h^'r28  example  is  John  i.  28,  which,  according  to  the  Ed.  Elzev. 
runs :  ravra  iv  'BrjOajSapa  iyeveTOj  according   to  some   Uncial 


THE   CRITICISM  OF  THE   TEXT.  115 

manuscripts,  several  Verss.,  and  Fathers.  On  the  contrary, 
by  far  the  most  of  the  Uncials,  and  among  them  precisely  the 
best,  have  BrjOavta,  for  which  also,  among  others,  both  the  Latin 
and  both  the  Egyptian  Verss.  and  several  Fathers  witness. 
Here,  now,  the  great  preponderance  of  the  ancient  Codd.  would 
already  give  the  preference  to  the  latter  reading ;  but  to  this 
must  be  added  still  the  decisive  ground,  that  it  can  be  shown 
with  certainty  how  the  former  reading  arose.  Origen,  namely, 
says  (Tom.  VI.  §  24)  that  it  stands,  indeed,  in  nearly  all  man- 
uscripts :  ravra  iv  'BrjOavia  cyeVcro,  but  that  he  has  visited  the 
region,  and  found  on  the  Jordan  no  place  of  this  name,  which 
is  rather  the  well-known  suburb  of  Jerusalem,  but  found,  indeed 
a  Bethabara,  and  so,  in  his  opinion,  must  it  be  read.  Another 
passage  of  this  kind  is  Matt.  viii.  28  coll.  with  Mark  v.  1,  Luke  Matt.  viii. 

^...     r,         -^      ^  -,  -,.  -,       -r^  ^  .      28coll.with 

vni.  2b.     Matthew  reads  accordmg  to  the  liecepta  Vepy^crqviav^  Mark  v.  i, 

a  reading  supported  by  several  Uncials ;  on  the  other  hand. 
Vat.,  Ephr.  (prima  manu),  and  other  Uncials,  also  both  Syriac 
Verss.,  the  Vulg.,  and  several  Fathers  have  FaSapT^vcui/  (Siua'it. 
Ta^aprjvwv  ?)  The  relation  of  testimony  is  otherwise  in  Mark, 
where  Alexandr.,  Ephr.,  and  the  great  majority  of  the  rest  of 
the  Uncials  read  FaSapT/vcuv,  while  Vat.,  Sinait,,  Cantab.,  and 
both  Latin  Verss.  have  Tcpaarjvuyv,  and  other  witnesses  Fcpyecn;- 
vwv.  In  Luke  the  Textus  Receptus,  supported  by  a  great  num- 
ber of  Uncials  and  some  Verss.,  reads  TaSapr]vu)v  :  Vat.,  Sinait., 
Cantab.,  both  Latin  Verss.,  the  Ujiper  Egyptian  Vers.,  and 
the  Philoxenian  have  Tepaa-rjviov,  very  much  the  same  wit- 
nesses in  Luke  as  in  Mark  have  Tepyea-rjvCjv.  In  Mark  and 
Luke  the  reading  Tepaarjvtov  appears  to  be  critically  assured, 
while  TepyGcrrjviov  appears  to  have  arisen  from  the  geographical 
notice  of  Origen,  that  the  place  of  the  occurrence  cannot  be 
Gadara,  because  there  is  no  sea  in  the  neighborhood  of  this 
place ;  while  Gergesa  is  an  ancient  town  on  the  sea  of  Gen- 
nesaret,  and  has  a  precipice  from  which  the  swine  could  hurl 
themselves.  FcpyecTTyvcui/  must  accordingly  be  regarded  as  a 
correction,  while  Tadaprjvujv  and  TepaarjvCjv  are  more  original, 
but  perhaps  attributable  to  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the  very 


116  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

ancient  copyists.  It  is  a  difficulty  that  the  author  of  Matthew, 
who  was  presumably  familiar  with  the  country,  has  the  geo- 
graphically incorrect,  but  critically  assured,  TaSaprjva)v.  But 
we  know  not  how  our  canonical  Matthew  is  related  to  the 
original  Hebrew  [Aramaic]  Matthew,  whose  author  was,  at 
Incorrect     all  events,  familiar  with  the  country.    At  other  times  the  varia- 

citation.  .         .  .         ,  ,  „  ,      .  .       . 

tion  IS  occasioned  by  a  really  or  apparently  incorrect  citation. 

Mark  i.  2.  An  example  is  Mark  i.  2.  Here  the  Received  Text,  supported 
by  the  great  majority  of  Uncial  manuscripts,  some  versions, 
and  by  Iranaeus,  reads :  Ka6ui<5  yiypa-rrTai  iv  toIs  Trpo^r^rais. 
On  the  other  hand,  Codd.,  Yat,  Sinait.,  Cantabr.,  and  other 
Uncials,  as  also  the  majority  of  the  ancient  versions,  and 
several  Fathers  have  :  iv  (tw)  'Ho-ata  tw  7rpocf>rJTrj.  But  now 
the  passage :  "  Behold  I  send  my  messengers  before  thy  face," 
is  found  not  in  Isaiah  but  in  Malachi  (iii.  1),  as  already  Euse- 
bius,  for  instance,  saw.  Since  now  it  is  not  at  all  clear  how 
the  reading,  iv  t.  'Ho-,  tw  7rpo<^.  could  have  arisen  and  have 
found  its  way  into  precisely  the  best  Codd.,  if  eV  rot?  rrpo^.  had 
been  the  original  reading,  the  latter  must  be  regarded  as  a  cor- 
rection.    Just  such  is  the  case  with  the  incorrect  citation  in 

Matt.xxvii.  Matt,  xxvii.  9  {to  prjOiv  8ia  rov  7rpo(f)yTov  lepe/xLov),  since  the 
passage  stands  not  in  Jeremiah,  but  in  Zechariah  (xi.  13). 
Nevertheless,  the  reading  8ia  rov  7rpo(fi.  'Upe/xtov  is  so  abun- 
dantly attested,  that  Textual  Criticism  is  obliged,  indeed,  on  this 

Mark  ii.  26.  account  to  give  it  the  preference.  A  similar  case  is  Mark  ii. 
26,  where  the  reading  cttI  ^K^iaBap  apxi^p^o<;,  confirmed  by  the 
most  and  the  best  Codd.,  is  a  historical  mistake,  since  according 
to  1  Sam.  xxi.  1,  this  event  in  David's  life  took  place  not  under 
the  high-priest  Abiathar,  but  under  Ahimelech.  The  very 
weakly  confirmed  variations  of  this  passage  must,  therefore,  be 
regarded  as  corrections  of  a  few  copyists.     But  there  occurs  also 

Actsxiii.33  a  case  in  which  *the  citation  is  only  apparently  defective,  and  is 
corrected  from  ignorance  ;  so  Acts  xiii.  33.  Here,  namely,  the 
passage  Ps.  ii.  7,  according  to  Cod.  Cantabr.,  Origen,  Tertullian 
(Adversus  Marcionem,  4,  22),  Hilary,  Jerome,  and  Cassiodorus, 
who  testify  at  the  same  time  that  Ps.  i.  and  ii.  were  embraced 


THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE   TEXT.  117 

in  one,  is  introduced  with  the  words  ws  koI  Iv  tQ  Trpwrw  i/^aX/xw 
yeypdiTTaL.     The  reading  of  the  ordinary  text  cv  tw  gevrepo)  is 
to  be  regarded  as  a  correction,  although  it  is  supported  in  part 
by  the  most  important  manuscripts.     What  has  been  derived 
from   the  consideration  of  the   foregoing   examples   may  be 
summed  up  in  the  following  principles:  1)  Of  two  or  more  read-  principles, 
ings,  that  is  to  be  rejected  which  betrays  an  attempt  to  remove 
a  difficulty,  and  that  to  be  held  as  genuine  which  presents  the 
difficulty.     2)  This  rule  is  to  be  observed  even  if  the  presumably 
correct  reading  has  the  preponderance   of  critical  testimony 
aga'inst  it.     3)  Yet  also  a  reading  betraying  the  hand  of  a  cor- 
rector can  be  decisively  rejected  as  such,  and  a  reading  on  in- 
ternal grounds  held  to  be  genuine  can  be  really  set  forward  as 
such,  only  if  this  latter  is  supported  by  at  least  one,  or  still 
better,  by  some  testimonies,  and  that  too  of  different  kinds. 
6.   Corruptions  for  the  Sake  of  Harmony, 
A  frequent  cause  of  the  corruption  of  the  text  was  the  strtv- 
ing  after  harmony,  whether  among  the  Evangelists  or  between 
the  Old  Testament  citations  and  the  LXX.     As  regards  the 
harmony  that  was  sought  between  the  New  Testament  parallel  ^^ewT^est. 
passages,  we  avail  ourselves  for  illustration  of  the  following 
examples  :  Luke  xi.  4  coll.  with  Matt.  vi.  13.     Matthew,  as  is  ^^^^^^^^^ 
well-known,  concludes  the  Lord's  Prayer  with  the  words  aXka.  Matt.  vi.  13. 
'pvaai  ^/xSs,  etc.     Just  so,  according  to  the  ordinary  text,  reads 
Luke,  and  this  reading  is  attested  with  extraordinary  strength, 
being  that  of  (among  others)  Codd.  Alexandr.,  Ephr.,  Cantabr., 
Basil.,  and  many  versions.     But  Codd.  Vat.,  Sinait.,  together 
with  some  cursives,  omit  these  words  and  have  the  Prayer  only 
to  €is  7r6tpao-/AoV,  and  what  gives  greater  weight  to  these  wit- 
nesses is  the  fact  that  Origen  twice  expressly  says  that  the 
words  dUa  pvo-at  ^/xas  are  omitted  by  Luke.     Jerome  and 
Augustine  bear  the  same  testimony.     It  cannot  be  seen  at  all 
how  these  words,  if  original,  could  have  been  omitted ;  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  very  easy  to  see  how  a  striving  for  conformity 
could  have  mterpolated  this  addition.     Accordingly,  this  read- 
ing, despite  the  excellent   confirmation,  is  to  be  regarded  as 


118         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

spurious.  "We  have  here,  moreover,  again  a  proof  that  among 
the  Uncial  manuscripts  Cod.  Vat.  (together  with  the  Sinait.),is 
Johnxix.U  often  almost  alone  in  giving  the  genuine  reading.  See  further 
Mark  XV .25.  John  xix.  14  coll.  with  Mark  xv.  25.  John  says  —  after  having 
mentioned  that  Pilate  took  his  place  on  the  seat  of  judgment 
for  the  purpose  of  pronouncing  his  judgment  on  Jesus  —  wpa 
rjv  (I)?  €KTi7,  and  this  reading  is  attested  by  Codd.  Vat.,  Sinalt., 
Alex.,  and  many  other  Uncials ;  further  by  both  Latin,  both 
Egyptian,  and  both  Syriac  versions,  as  also  by  many  Fathers 
and  ancient  scholia.  But  this  now  appears  to  be  in  flagrant 
contradiction  with  Mark  xv.  25,  where  after  the  mention  of  the 
crucifixion  it  is  said,  rjv  Sk  wpa  TpiTrj.  The  contradiction  re- 
mains, even  if  we  suppose  that  the  one  statement  rests  on  the 
Eoman,  and  the  other  on  the  Jewish  method  of  computation.^ 
If,  therefore,  some  few  Uncials,  e.g.  Cod.  Sangall.,  also  Euse- 
bius,  in  the  Chronicon  and  in  the  Ep.  ad  Marinum,  read  : 
wpa  rjv  a)s  Tptrry,  we  must  regard  this  as  a  variation  for  the  sake 
of  conformity  ;  yet  the  observation  of  Severinus  of  Antioch 
(Ed.  Mai  IV.  209),  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  difference 
arose  from  the  confounding  of  the  single  V  with  the  Aeolic  F, 
The  otherwise  interesting  notice  of  Eusebius,  that  the  auto- 
graph of  John's  Gospel,  which  in  his  time  was  preserved  and 
exhibited  at  Ephesus,  read  rpiTq,  stands  too  much  isolated,  and 
rests  merely  on  the  mediate  testimony  of  Severinus  of  Antiocli. 
Gal.  ii.  5.  Here  also  belongs,  perhaps,  Gal.  ii.  5.  Here  Codd.  Vat., 
Sinait.,  Alex.,  Ephr.,  and  other  Uncials,  further  both  Syriac 
versions,  the  Vulg.,  the  Gothic,  also  very  many  Fathers,  both 
Latin  and  Greek,  read:  oU  ovSk  Trpo?  wpav  ci^a/xcv.  On  the 
other  hand,  ovSi  is  omitted  by  Cod.  Clarom.,  by  Iraiiaeus, 
Tertullian,  and  Codd.  in  Jerome.  In  Jerome's  time,  in  general, 
most  of  the  Greek  nqanuscripts  seem  to  have  read  ovSi ;  most 
of  the  Latin  to  have  omitted  it.  How,  now,  could  it  happen 
that  a  variation  arose  which  said  precisely  the  contradictory  of 
the  original  ?  It  could  be  said  on  exegetical  grounds  against 
the  genuineness  of  ovSe,  that  —  after  it  had  been  said  (v.  3) 
1  Cf.  Godet,  Tholuck,  and  Meyer  in  loco  Joh.  —  Tk. 


THE  CRITICISM   OF  THE   TEXT.  119 

dAA*  ovSk  Ttro?  .  .  .  rp/ayKaa-Orj  Trepir fJL7)Brjv ai  —  what  follows  is 
connected  with  Se,  and  requires  as  a  counterpart  a  positive 
proposition.  But  such  were  not  at  all,  as  a  rule,  the  grounds 
and  considerations  according  to  which  the  ancient  copyists  and 
correctors  proceeded.  Rather,  it  was  either  regarded  as  more 
suitable  to  the  situation,  to  suppose  that  Paul  momentarily 
yielded  (see  Tertullian  Adv.  Marcionem,  V.  3),  or  an  incon- 
sistency was  found  in  the  fact  that  Paul,  according  to  Acts  xvi. 
3,  circumcised  Timothy  for  the  sake  of  the  Jews  present ;  and 
now,  in  similar  circumstances,  has  not  yielded  to  those  who 
desired  the  circumcision  of  Titus.  Through  the  omission,  then, 
of  ovhi  the  inconsistency  is  completely  removed,  not,  to  be  sure, 
to  the  advantage  of  the  intention  of  the  whole  passage,  in 
which  the  Apostle  evidently  means  to  show  that  he  has  main- 
tained his  independence  over  against  his  Jewish -Christian 
opponents.  That  the  8e  (vs.  4)  requires  a  positive  antithesis  is  * 
indeed  no  constraining  ground,  since  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact 
that  Se  here  may  be  merely  metabatic,  there  is  no  lack  of 
examples,  especially  in  Paul,  where  after  a  negative  proposition 
the  antithetical  hi  again  stands  at  the  head  of  a  negative  pro- 
position ;  so  Rom.  iv.  20.  But  we  find  not  only  a  striving  for 
conformity  of  the  subject-matter,  but  'also  for  verbal  conform- 
ity. Cf.  Mark  i.  16  with  Matt.  iv.  18.  The  passage  in  Mark  Marki.  16: 
according  to  the  Ed.  Elzev.  runs  thus  :  IleptTraTajv  Se  irapk  Tr]v 
BaXaaraav  Trj<s  raXiXatas.  So  read  many  Uncial  manuscripts, 
especially  -Alex.,  Augiens.,  Sangall.,  and  some  versions.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  the  Vat.,  Sinait.,  Cantabr.,  and  many  Cur- 
sives, in  both  the  Latin,  the  Coptic,  Gothic,  and  other  versions, 
it  is  Kttt  Trapdyoiv  .  .  .  Since  now  the  former  reading  agrees 
verbally  with  the  passage  in  Matthew,  which  is  critically  estab- 
lished, the  rise  of  the  latter  reading  would  be  inexplicable,  if 
-jTcpuraroiv  Se  were  the  original.  See  further,  Mark  iv.  6  com-  Mark  iy.  6 
pared  with  Matt.  xiii.  6.  The  Ed.  Elzev.  has  the  passage  in  Matt.  xiii.  6 
Mark,  thus  :  7}Xlov  8e  avaT€i\aKTo<s  . . . ,  which  reading  is  sup- 
ported by  Codd.  Alex.,  Basil.,  Aug.,  and  a  great  number  of 
others,  and  agrees  with  Matt  xiii.  6.     Therefore,  the  reading 


120         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

presented    in   Codd.   Vat.,    Sinait.,    Ephr.,    Cantabr.,   icai   ore 
dverctXev  6  ^Xtos,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  more  original,  not 
merely  by  reason  of  the  weight  of  the  testimonies,  but  also  l)y 
reason  of   the  non-agreement  with  the  passage  in  Matthew. 
Mark  ii.  7     The    case    is    somewhat   more    complicated    with   Mark  ii.  7, 
3iatt.  ix.  3   because  here,  not  only  Matt.  ix.  3,  but  also  Luke  v.  21  is  to  be 
21.  '  compared.     In  Matthew  it  is  said  :  ovto<s  pXaacfirjyid,  in  Luke 

Tis  IdTLv  ovTo^,  OS  AoAet  ^XucTc^ry/xtas  ;  both  these  conceptions 
seem  to  have  flowed  together  in  Mark.  Hence  the  wavering 
here  between  XaXel  ^Aao-^ry/^tas  (Codd.  Alex.,  Ephr.,  Basil., 
Aug.,  and  several  versions),  and  rt  ovros  ovrois  XaXel;  jSXacrcfirjiJieL 
(Vat.,  Sinait.,  Cantabr. ;  Verss.  Vulg.,  Copt.,  et  al.),  in  which 
no  internal  ground  is  decisive  for  the  one  or  the  other  reading, 
and  the  external  testimonies  also  are  divided,  unless  we  follow 
the  often  confirmed  authority  of  the  Cod.  Vat. 

7.   Old  Testament  Citations  and  the  LXX. 
Almost  oftener  still  it  occurs  that  Old  Testament  citations, 
which  are  frequently  merely  citations   from   memory  or  are 
otherwise    inaccurate,  are   made   to   conform   to  the  original 
LXX  Text   passage  (i.e.  to  the  LXX).     Here,  of  course,  circumspection  is 
corrup  .       necessary,  because  the  text  of  the  LXX  is  exceedingly  corrupt, 
and  not  seldom,  conversely,  the  Old  Testament  passage  under 
consideration  has  been  assimilated  to  the  New  Testament  cita- 
tion.    Yet  in  the  following  passages,  e.g.  the  critical  judgment 
Luke  xxiii.  can  hardly  be  doubtful ;  Luke  xxiii.  46  coll.  with  Ps.  xxx.  6 
Ps.  XXX.  6    (LXX).     The  words  of  Jesus  run  accordinsj  to  the  ordinary 

(LXX).  ^  ,  .    ,  r,'  V  .      ,  -,. 

text :  CIS  ^etpa<»  (tov  TrapaUrjaofJiaL  to  irvcvfjca  /xov,  a  reaclmg  sup- 
ported by  a  considerable  number  of  manuscripts.     On  the  other 
hand,  the  Vat.,  Sinait.,  Alex.,  Ephr.,  and  not  a  few  others,  have 
TrapaTiOefxaL  . . . ,  for  which  the  weight  of  testimony,  as  well  as 
the  deviation  from  the   LXX,  bears  favorable  witness.     See 
Rom.  ix.  27  further,  Rom.  ix.  27  coll.  with  Isa.  x.  22,  where  the  uTroXet/x/xa 
isa.x.  22.     deviating  from  the  LXX,  but  supported  by  Codd.  Vat.,  Sinait., 
Alex.,  is    certainly  to  be  preferred   to   the  ordinary   reading 
KaraXilfxpa,  from  the  fact  that  no  manuscript  of  the  LXX  reads 
Rom.  ix.  33  vTTo\iip-p.a.    A  precisely  similar  case  seems  to  be  Rom.  ix.  33  coll. 


THE   CRITICISM   OP  THE   TEXT.  121 

Isa.  viii.  U.  The  Ed.  Elzev.,  namely,  has  the  passage  in  Romans  coll.  with 

-  '  ,  XS^.  VU1«  !,%• 

thus  :  . .  .  Kai.  7ras  6  Trtcrreuwi/  ctt'  avrio  ov  KaraicTX^vBricreraL,  with- 
out Codd.  of  great  weight,  but  confirmed  by  theVulg.,  Philoxen., 
and  other  testimonies.  But  Codd.  Vat,  Sinait.,  Alex.,  Clarom., 
and  several  Fathers  have  the  passage  without  Tras.  The  im- 
portant testimonies  for  the  latter,  as  well  as  the  non-agreement 
with  the  LXX,  condemn  the  former  reading  as  a  correction 
for  the  sake  of  conformity  with  the  Old  Testament  passage.  It 
is  to  be  observed  that  in  Rom.  x.  11  where  this  passage  is 

Quoted,  TTtt?  stands  without  variation.     Yet,  we  must  not  forget  Considera- 
^  ,  ,        .  .  tion  of  the 

to  consider  whether  or  not  the  author  m  question  was  accas- author's 

tomed  to  cite  accurately,  as  was  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  ^^^^^' 
the  Hebrews ;  in  the  former  case  the  principle  is  not  uncon- 
ditionally applicable.  What  has  been  said  in  this  paragraph 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  rules  :  1)  First  of  all,  we  Rules. 
are  to  ascertain  with  care,  whether  the  variation  may  not  be  a 
mere  error  of  a  copyist,  or  an  error  to  be  explained  on  palaeo- 
graphical  grounds,  or  otherwise  accidental;  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  change  is  probably  an  arbitrary  one,  2)  the  principle 
must  be  applied,  that  if  in  a  parallel  passage  two  or  more  read- 
ings are  found,  of  which  the  one  is  more  like  the  original  pas- 
sage, the  other  more  unlike,  the  more  unlike  is  to  be  regarded 
as  the  more  original.  Yet,  in  this  we  must  inquire,  a)  whether 
the  passages  are  really  parallel ;  ^)  whether  the  more  unlike  is 
supported  by  one  or  several  respectable  witnesses,  and  y) 
whether  the  author  under  consideration  is  accustomed  to  cite 
freely  according  to  the  LXX,  as  was  Paul,  or  to  cite  accu- 
rately according  to  this  version. 

8.  Crammatical   Corrections, 
More  frequently   the  variations   find   their  explanation   in 
grammatical  corrections  or  in  attempts  to  remove   linguistic 
difficulties.     Examples  are  :  Matt.  v.  28,  where  the  reading  of  Matt.  v.  28. 
the  Ed.  Elzev.  Trpos  to  i-mOvfjiyjaaL  avTTj^  is  a  correction  of  the 
barbarous,  but  original  Trpos  t.  ctti^.  avrrjv  ;  Matt.  xv.  32,  where  Matt.  xv.  82 
the  difficult  and  incorrect  construction  on  ^Srj  ^/xepat  rpels  irpocr- 
fjiivovatv  /Aot  has  been  changed  into  .  .  .  rjfx.epas  rpets.  ...     In 
11 


122         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

Mark ix. 26.  Mark  ix.  26  on  account  of  the  neuter  subject  7rv€v/xa  (see vs. 25) 
the  original  Kpd$a<5  and  (nrapdias  has  been  corrected  into  Kpd^av 

Luke  xxui.  and  a-rapd^av.  A  similar  case  is  Luke  xxiii.  63,  where  on 
account  of  the  neuter  object  croj/xa  (v.  52,  coll.  1st  Hemist.  v: 
Y.  53)  the  original  avrov,  which  is  put  ad  sensum  (Itjo-ovv),  has 

John  vi.  9.  been  changed  into  avro.  John  vi.  9  stands  in  the  received  text 
TratSaptov  eV  o  9(€t  ....  a  correction  of  the  original  os  .  .  .     In 

John  xvii.   John  xvii.  2  and  3  the  Subjunctives  hiixrr]  and  -ytvwcrKcocrtv  seem 

'  *  to  be  corrections  of  the  incorrect  use  of  the  Indicative  after 

Iva,  peculiar  to  the  later  Greek.  Yet  it  is  to  be  observed  with 
regard  to  the  latter  passage,  that  Codd.  Vat.  and  Sinait.,  which 
otherwise  so  often,  especially  when  they  agree,  have  the  correct 
reading,  also  read  Swar)  and  ytvwcrKojo-tv.  This  is  the  more 
remarkable  from  the  fact  that  nearly  the  same  witnesses  that 

Gal.  ii.  4.     have  here  the  Subjunctive,  read  in  Gal.  ii.  4  lvq.  i^/xa?  KaraSou- 

ICor.  iv.6.  Xd)aovaLv.  On  the  other  hand,  1  Cor.  iv.  6  has  Iva  p.y]  .  .  , 
cf>vaiov(TOe,  without  variation.  With  reference  to  the  passage 
in  John,  there  must  be  still  some  doubt  whether  Swcret  and 
yivd>(TKov(TLv  were  the  original  writing. 

Linguistic         The  efforts  of  the  correctors  were  also  directed  to  the  remov- 

aspen  les.    .^^  ^^^  mollification  of  certain  linguistic  asperities.     See  Mark 

Markiii.16.  iii.  16;  here  the  ordinary  text,  supported  by  a  host  of  good 
witncssess,  has  k.  liriQ-qKev  rw  ^IpnovL  ovofia  Uerpov ;  but  this 
looks  very  like  an  alleviation  of  the  reading  presented  by  Codd. 
Vat.,  Sinait.,  Ephr.,  eTridrjKev  ovo/xa  tw  ^ifxojvL  Uirpov.  This  is 
so  much  the  more  probable,  from  the  fact  that  some  witnesses 

Mark  ix.  23.  contain  also  other  supposed  emendations.  In  Mark  ix.  23,  to 
ci  Bvvrj  appears  at  first  sight  peculiar,  and  yet  it  is  confirmed  by 
the  three  oldest  manuscripts.  We  have,  therefore,  ground  for 
regarding  the  unusually  well-attested  reading  of  the  Ed.  Elzev., 
TO  €t  Svvr]  (StVacrai)'  Trto-Tevcrat  as  an  alleviating  explanation.    In 

Mark  ii.  7.  the  same  category  also  belongs,  perhaps,  the  passage,  Mark  ii. 
7,  already  cited,  where  the  reading  of  the  Ed.  Elzev.  tl  ovto<s 
XaXei  (3\aacl)r]ixLa<s  is  an  unmistakaljle  alleviation  of  the  genuine 
reading  tl  ovto';  ovtws  XaXel;  fiXaa<l>r]p.€i.     Most  familiar  and 

Gal.  ii.  6.    most  unmistakable  of  all  is  the  fact,  that  in  Gal.  ii.  5  the  omis- 


THE   CRITICISM   OP  THE   TEXT.  123 

Bion  of  oX<;  by  some  ancient  witnesses  is  an  alleviation,  since 
by  reason  of  the  oh  the  construction  is  difficult  and  anacoluthic 
Of  the  genuineness  of  the  ots,  the  external  confirmation  and  the 
ground  just  given  leave  not  the  slightest  doubt.  From  what  has 
been  said  the  following  rules  may  be  deduced  :  1 )  Every  read-  Rules, 
incr  that  has  the  character  of  a  correction  or  an  alleviation  is  at 
least  doubtful,  and  the  more  incorrect  and  more  difficult  —  bar- 
ring evident  transcribers'  errors  —  are  to  be  preferred.  2) 
The  probability  advances  to  certainty  if  the  harder  reading  be 
supported  by  the  oldest  and  most  important  manuscripts. 

9.  Changes  for  Ecclesiastical  Reasons. 

Finally,  we  may  observe  still  another  cause  of  the  alteration 
of  the  text,  viz.  it  might  happen  that  a  passage  presupposed  a 
custom  or  a  notion  that  appeared  to  be  antagonistic  to  a  notion 
or  a  custom  of  the  later  church.  In  such  cases  it  was  sought 
through  a  little  change  or  omission  to  remove  the  antagonism, 
and  to  make  the  passage  conform  to  the  custom  or  opinion  of 
the    dominant   church.     Cf.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.     Most   editions  Matt.xxviii 

19 
read  fJLaOrjTevaaTC  Travra  to.  Wvt),  ySaTrrt^ovres  avTov<;  .  .  .  sup- 
ported by  Codd.  vSinait.,  Alexandr.,  and  a  great  number  of 
others,  as  well  as  by  both  the  Latin  versions  and  some  Fathers. 
On  the  other  hand.  Vat.  and  Cantabr.  read  /JaTn-to-avres,  doubt- 
less on  the  ground  that  after  the  third  century  infant  baptism 
became  common.  See  further,  the  already  cited  passage  iCor.  iCor.xv.5L 
XV.  51,  where  the  reading  wavers  between  Travres  (fttv)  ov  Koifx-q- 
OyjcrofXiOa,  Travres  Se  aXXayrjaoixeda  and  Travres  /xev  KoifxrjOrjcroixeOa., 
ov  Trai/re?  8e  akXayqdoixf.Oa.  The  former  reading,  as  the  un- 
doubtedly original,  sprang  from  the  expectation  on  the  part  of 
the  early  Christians  of  the  speedy  Parousia,  which  subsequent 
experience  contradicted  ;  hence  the  change.  It  is  less  certain 
whether  in  Matt.  i.  25  the  omission  of  the  word  irpoiToroKov  Matt.  i.  25. 
belongs  to  this  category.  The  omission  is,  of  course,  very  much 
to  the  interest  of  the  church,  in  removing  what  might  be  pre- 
judicial to  the  constant  virginity  of  jMary.  Yet  it  may  be 
urged  as  a  consideration  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Trptu- 
roTOKoVi  that  the  omission  is  confirmed  by  Codd.  Vat.,  Sinait., 


124         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

and  Dublin.  We  may  sum  up  the  contents  of  the  paragraph 
Eules.  in  the  following  propositions  :  1)  Of  two  readings,  of  which 
the  one  is  opposed  to  the  later  custom  or  opinion  of  the  church, 
the  other  agreeing  with  it,  the  former  has  the  probability  of 
genuineness  on  its  side.  2)  This  probability,  however,  amounts 
to  certainty  only  if  it  is  confirmed  by  the  oldest  and  most  im- 
portant testimonies  ;  but  if  this  is  not  the  case,  the  weaker  the 
support  of  the  reading  in  question  is,  the  more  doubtful  must 
be  the  critical  judgment. 

10.  Collective   Result. 

The  collective  result  for  the  critical  procedure  is  the  follow- 
Text  ing :       a)  As  a  rule  the  ascertainment   of   the   ri^jht   reading 

Criticism  ^^      ,  „  .        ,  ,  .  ,         ,     .  ^  , 

precedes  precedes  all  exegesis ;  but  this  rule  admits  of  exceptions,  as 
often  as  this  ascertainment  is  difficult,  and  is  conditioned  in 
part  by  internal  grounds  of-  linguistic  usage  and  of  the  connec- 

External      tion.    Z»)   The  Critical  judgment  must  always  be  built  as  well 

attestations  i  i      •  i  c     i  i 

andinternai  upon  the  relative  value  01  the  external  attestations  as  upon 
pro  a  1 1  y.  g^.Q^^^jg  qj--  ji^ternal  probability ;  for  cases  in  which  these  are 
mutually  contradictory  no  general  rule  can  be  laid  down,  c) 
Antiquity  As  regards  the  value  of  external  testimonies,  antiquity  and 
tance.  importance,  especially  if  they  are  of  different  origui  and  differ- 

ent kind,  is  to  be  preferred  to  multitude  ;  yet  even  the  oldest 

Internal       manuscript  is  no  infallible  authority,     d)  With  regard  to  the 
grounds.       .  ^   ^  ^  _  /  -,  . 

internal  grounds,  everything  may  be  summed  up  in  one  prin- 
ciple :  The  original  reading  is  that  from  which  the  rise  of  the 
others  can  he  explained. 

2.    The  Graininatical  Explanation. 

a)    The  Character  of  the  New  Testament  Language  in  general. 

Cf.  Bernhardy,  Grundriss  der  Griechischen  Literatur.  t.  432  ff. 

Winer,  Grammar  of  tlie  Idiom  of  tlie  New  Testament  (Prof.  TliayCr's  ed.). 

Alex.  Jiuttmann,  Kew  Testament  Grammar  (Prof.  Thayer's  ed.)- 

[Prof.  James  Iladley ,T\\o  Language  of  the  xsew  Testament,  in  Smith's  Dictionary 

of  the  Bible  (Am.  ed.). 
Alex.  lioberis,  Discussions  on  the  Go.«pels]. 

II.   General    Discussion. 

Referring,  as  we  do,  for  the  details  to  the  works  cited  above, 
we  may  here  be  content  with  the  most  essential  observations.  It 


THE   N.  T.  LINGUISTIC   CHARACTER  IN  GENERAL.     125 

is  well-known,  that  the   Greek  language  was  of  old  divided 

into  various  dialects,  but  then,  through  the  intellectual  blooming  Dialects. 

of  the  country,  especially  of  Athens,  had  attained  to  such  a 

perfection  and  delicacy  as  no  other  language  ever  did  ;  but  that, 

in  consequence  of  the  Macedonian  conquest,  it  lost  much  of  its 

delicacy,  and  that  then  was  formed  a  composite  language,  of 

which  indeed  the  Attic  dialect  formed  the  basis,  but  in  which 

elements  of  other  dialects  also,  especially  of  the  Macedonian  and 

the  Alexandrine,  were  combined.     Thus  was  formed  a  general  General 

iitGriirv 

literary  language    (BLa.\€Kro<;  Koivrj)   in  which    Polybius,    Dio-  language, 
nysius  of  Halicarnassus,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Dio  Cassius,  Aelian, 
Plerodian,  and  others  wrote.     Besides  the  Atticisms,  lonicisms, 
Doricisms,  and  Aeolicisms,  the  SiaAcKTos   kolvt]  shows  still  the 
following  peculiarities  :     a)  "Words  that  occur  seldom  or  only  Peculiari- 
in    poetical    discourse    in    the    old  Greek    now  become  more  poetical 
common,  and  pass  pver  into  plain    prose,  as  e.g.  ficaovvKTiov,  i^^prose!^*^ 
6€o(TTvyr]<;,  jSp^x'^i  to  moisten,  caOo)  for  eo-^tw,  and  others,     b) 
"Words  long  in  use  receive  another  form,  as  avdO^fxa  for  avaO-qixa^  Change  of 
yevicria  for  yeviOXca,   cKTrctXat  for  TraXat,  xOi<i  for  l\6i<i,  LKeaca 
for   lKeT€La,  ixLcrOaTToSocrta  for  jxiaOoSoaLa,  fxov6cfi6aX/xo<;  for  ere- 
p6<f)0a\fxo<i,  vovO^aca  for  vovOiTrjon^,  oTrracria  for  oij/L?,  r)  opKOfxoa-ia 
for   TO,    6p/c.,  6  TrXrjaLov  for   6    TrcAas,   TroraTros  for  TroSaTro?,  etc. 
Especially  frequent  become  verbal  forms   in  -t'^co,  in  -w  pure 
instead  of  in  -jml  (e.g.  o/xt/l'w  instead  of  o/xw/jll),  formed  from 
the  perfect,  as  crrr/Kcu,  substantive  in  -fxa.     c)   Words  entirely  Newwords, 
new,  mostly  words  formed  through    composition,  make    their 
appearance,   as    dvTiAurpov,  dX€KTopocf>wvLa,  d7roK6(^aAi^a>,  dyaOo- 
TToUoi,   alxfiaXoirevoi,  wxOi^fxepov,   o-iro/xerptoi/,  et  al.       d)    Words  New  mean- 
long  familiar  and  current  receive  new  meanings,  as  dvaKXiveiv  words, 
and    dvairinr^iv    to    recline    at    table,    diroKpLOrfvaL    to    answer, 
dTrordia-caO ai    to    take    leave,  SuLfXwv    or    Sat/xovtov  evil  spirit, 
evxo-ptaOeLv  to  thank,  $vXov  tree,  TrapccKaXetv  to  pray,  crTeyeLv  to 
endure,  to  bear  up,  <f>Odvciv  to  come,  to  arrive,  ;)(p7;/xarti^etv  to  be 
called,  xj/iojxL^eLv  to  eat,  to  nourish,  et  al.    In  a  grammatical  point 
of  view  the  following  may  be  observed,    a)  Inflections  of  nouns  Peculiar 
and  verbs  occur  which  at  an  earlier  period  were  either  entirely 
11* 


126  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

unknown  or  peculiar  to  a  single  dialect,  e.g.  the  Doricism  d<f>i(jjvTaL 

for  d(f>eu'TaL,  the  Aeolic  optative  ending  in  -eta,  the  ending  of  the 

second  person  of  the  Present  and  Future  Passive  and  Middle  in 
Infrequency  -€t  instead  of  in  -r],  etc.    b)  Infrequency  of  the  use  of  the  Dual, 

as  e.g.  Sva-L  instead  of  Bvolv.  c)  Infrequency  of  the  employ- 
Eareness  of  ment  of  the  Optative.     (In  the  Johannean  writings  it  does  not 

occur  at  all),  d)  The  construing  of  certain  verbs  with  other 
Change  of    Cases,  especially  with  the  Accusative,  as  iTnOvfx^lv  n  instead  of 

Ttvo?,  0o/?ctcr^at  (xtto  instead  of  viro  and  Accusative  et  al.  e) 
Weakening  The  weakening  of  Iva  in  the  formulae,  OiXm  ij/a,  Xeyco  Iva.,  d^Lo<s 

Iva,  and  many  others.    /)  Use  of  the  Subjunctive  instead  of 

vs.  Optative  the  Optative  after  Preterites,  etc.     A  still  greater  degradation 

Ti'a  with  In-  of  the  languasfc  finds  place  in  the  construction  of  Iva  with  the 
dicative.  &      ©  r 

Indicative,  and  not  with  the  Future  only,  but  even  with  the 

<Tvv  with      Present  Indicative,  of  avv  with  the  Genitive,  the  confounding 

of  the  Cases  and  Tenses,  etc.     The  latter  peculiarities  do  not 

occur,  however;  in  authors  of  Greek  nationality,  nor  in  educated 

authors. 

12.   Literary  and  Popular  Language. 

A  difference  often  overlooked,  but  which  should  not  be  over- 
looked in   the   New  Testament  writers,   is  that  between  the 
Liability  to  literary  and  the  popular  language.  If  already  in  the  native  land 
the  hands  of  ^f  j-j^g  Greek  language  such  a  difference  may  have  found  j^lace, 
this  must  have  been  the  case  in  a  still  higher  degree,  in  coun- 
tries whose  national  language  was  not  originally  the  Greek. 
Many  modern  analogies  could  be  adduced.     That  thus  a  dete- 
rioration of  the  language,  at  least  in  relation  to  form,  must 
enter,  is  self-evident.     Yet  this  popular  Greek  may  be  viewed 
Kormal        from   another  point  of  view  also  as  a  normal  simplification, 
tion!  ^  ^^"    While  the  literary  language,  under  the  influence  of  philosophic 
culture,  had  gained   the  form   that  it  then  had,  the  popular 
language  remained  nearer  to  the  naive  simplicity.    This  appears 
especially  in  the  psychological   terminology,  in  as  far  as  the 
popular  language  remained  foreign  to  the  spiritualistic  distinc- 
Sourcesof    tions.     Since,  now,  the   New  Testament   writers   drew    their 
GreeSc.^^^^"  Greek  not  from  Aristotle,  Polybius,  in  general  not  from  Greek 


THE   N.  T.   LINGUISTIC   CHARACTER  IN   GENERAL.    127 

literature,  but  first  of  all  only  from  the  popular  language  and 
from  the  Alexandrine  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  their  lan- 
guage is  to  be  judged  not  according  to  the  usage  of  the  classical 
authors,  but  according  to  the  latter  sources.    Yet  there  is  a  dis-  Differences 

,  ^      ,      -,  ,  i-T-11         •  .in  individ- 

tmction  not  to  be  overlooked  between  the  mdividual  writers,  m  uai  writers, 
that  Luke  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  seem 
not  to  have  been  entirely  strangers  to  the  Greek  culture  of  their 
time.     Cf.  Zetzschwitz,  ProfangracitJit  und  biblischer  Sprach- 
geist,^  pp.  24  ff. 

13.   Influence  of  Shemitic  Contact. 

Through  the  Macedonian  world-dominion  the  Greek  lan- 
guage spread  itself  over  countries  and  peoples  whose  languages 
bore  no  relationship  with  it.  This  was  especially  the  case  with 
the  Shemitic  peoples.  The  Greek  universal  language  must,  Aramaic 
therefore,  receive  among  these  peoples  an  Oriental,  and  among  n,  T.Greek, 
the  Jews  more  definitely,  a  Hebrew-Aramaic  coloring.'^  Here 
also,  referring  to  the  works  mentioned  above,  we  present  only 
what  is  more  essential.  What  is  usually  understood  by  New 
Testament  Hebraisms  is  of  various  kinds  ;  these  are  a)  such  impure 
expressions,  forms  of  speech,  and  constructions  as  are  frequent, 
indeed,  in  the  Shemitic  idiom,  but  are  in  use  also  in  the  Greek 
language.  This  case  may  again  be  distinguished  into  examples 
where  the  expression  under  consideration  occurs,  indeed,  in 
Greek  also,  but  only  seldom,  in  which  case  the  biblical  writer 
certainly  derived  it  not  from  the  Greek,  but  from  his  native 
idiom ;  or  where  perchance  the  form  of  expression  occurs  in 
Greek  and  Hebrew  with  equal  frequency,  so  that  there  may  be 

doubt  from  which  idiom  it  proceeded.       B)  Expressions,  forms  Pure 

/.,,,.     Hebraisms, 
of  speech,  and  constructions,  to  which  nothing  can  be  found  m 

Greek  that  corresponds.  Such  are  Hebraisms  proper.  But 
these  again  are  of  two  kinds  ;  they  were  either  drawn  from  the 
Hebrew  language  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  were  derived  from 
the  Aramaic  or  Syro-Chaldaic  dialect  then  in  use  in  Pales- 
tine.    To  the  former  kind  belong  such  expressions  as  aprov 

i  "Profane  Greek  and  the  Lin-uistic  Spirit  of  the  Bible."— Tr. 
2  Of.  Art.  in  BibUotheca  Sacra  for  1876.  —  Te. 


128         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

^dycLv  (cnb  bri^;)  to  partake  of  a  meal,  al/xa  iKx^uv  (D'n  T\^'^) 
to  kill,  avLCTTTJvaL  a-n-ipfia  tlvl  {"h  r'nt  fi'^pf^)  to  raise  np  posterity 
to  any  one,  ck  /cotAta?  ixr)Tp6<s  (I'ais;  'i^STs)  frona  one's  birth  up, 
i^ipXf^o-OaL  €K  Trj<;  oacjivo^  rivog  ("S  ""^Vrj^  !^^^)  to  spring  from 
any  one,  ^-qrtlv  ^vxqv  tlvos  (^'2.:  "Op^^)  to  seek  any  one's  life, 
TToteti/  eXeos  /xera  tivo?  (cr  "ncn  f^il?^)  to  show  favor  to  any  one, 
TrpoawTTov  Xap.(3dv€Lv  (c^iS  ^'*V*r)  ^^  ^®  ^  partaker  of  any  one's 
Hebrew       favors,  vLo<;  Oavdrov  (nir;-"j3)  having  incurred  death.     7)  Hebrew 

mcaninj^s  .  r     "  ^  -,   '     r^        ^  -,  , 

to  Greek      meanmijs  are  transferred  to  Greek  words,  e.sf.  yXwcraa  (as  'tVcb) 

words.  '     o    /  V       I      r/ 

nation,  ho^a  (as  ^"i^S)   brightness,  Swa/^t?  (as  ""nJin;;)  miracle, 

ipuiTav  (as  ^5<^)  to  beg,  c^o/xoXoyctcr^at  rivt  (as  •~''^i<^)  to  praise 

or  to  thank  any  one,  cvkoyctv  (as  Tj';^^)  to  bless,  ivw-mov  rov  Oeov 

("hi<  ^^tb)  according  to  the  judgment  of  God,  eh  (^  "inx)  the 

first,  vvp.(^r)  (as  Ji'rs)  daughter-in-law,  680s  (as  T\T\)  manner  of 

life,  TrepLTrareiv  (as  Tj|r?Jl«^)   of  personal  conduct,  TroT-qpiov  (as 

Oir)  lot,  fate,  -rraara  crdp^  (as  ^bn'bs)  every  living    creature, 

Hebraizing  etc.       8)  Hebraizing  construction  of  verbs  especially  with  pre- 

tionof        positions,  where  the  Greek  has  simply  the  Accusative  or  the 

Dative,  e.g.  dKoXovOeiv    oTrtcrw    tivo?,    cTi/at    €ts    ti  (as  "b  •"."M), 

KpvTTTiLv  Ti  (XTro  Ttvo?  iustcad  of  TLvd  TL,  ofjLvveiv  tV  TLVL  iustcad 

of  TI  or  TLvd,   ofioXoyeLv   ev    tlvl    to    confess    any    one,    -rropev- 

cirOaL  oTTLCTdi  Tivos,  TrpoaKwcxv  IvdiTVLov  [ip-TrpoaOiu)  tlvos  et  al.      c) 

iip't^tion     Imitation  of  the  Hebrew  relative  pronoun  in  the  casus  obli- 

of  liobrew  ,  .  „ 

lielative.       quus   with  Suffix  following,  as   ov   to   tttvov   iv  ttJ  ;)(€ipi   atrov, 

Formulftfor  ot?  iS66r)  .  .  .  avTOt?,  ottov  .  .  .  Ikcl  etc.  ^)  The  Ilcbraizino- 
formula  for  an  oath  with  el,  e.g.  d/xrjv  Aeyco  {'/aii',  et  8f;6'7ya-eTat 
.  .  .  shall  by  no  means  be  given.  An  ellipsis,  as  is  well-known, 
lies  at  the  basis  of  this  formula,  which  in  Hebrew  is  now  and 
then  supplied  :  "  God  do  to  me  this  and  that,  if  .  .  .  see  1  Sam. 
iii.  17,  et  ah  ;   but  in  the  New  Testament  never.         rj)  The 

Kal  iyheTo  extraordinarily  frequent  Kat  iyevero  =z  ''rT'_* .  Tlie  extremely 
frequent  occurrence  of  Kat  belongs  as  well  to  the  Sliemitic 
idiom  as  to  popular  language  in  general,  where  other  authors 
avail  themselves  of  a  more  definite  conjunction  or  of  the  parti- 
ciple (co-ordination  instead  of  subordination),  see  e.g.  Matt.  xi. 
25;  XX vi.  45;  Mark  xv.  25;  Luke  xxiii.  44;  John  ii.  lo;  v. 


THE  N.  T.  LINGUISTIC   CHARACTER  IN   GENERAL.     129 

1   et  al.     Only  conditionally  are  we  here  to  class  the  construc- 
tion of  a  verb  with  a  Particip.  Pres.  or  with  the  Dative  of  the 
substantive  of  the   same  root,  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew 
Inlin.  Absol.,  as  l-rriOvi^ia  i7rSvf.r,aa,  xapa  x^'^P",  Oavar^o  reXev- 
rarco;   since  a  similar  construction    occurs   in   the  best  Greek 
authors;  yet  especially  in  those  writings    that   are   strongly 
Hebraistic  it  is  far  more  probable  that  the  formulae  were  taken 
from  the  Hebrew  than  from  the  Greek  linguistic  usage.     Not  Aramaxsma 
Hebraisms  but  Aramaisms  are,  on  the  other  hand,  such  forms 
of  expressions  as  yeveaOac  Oavdrov  (sri>3  zr^).  64>el\r)f.a  dc^uVat 
(vn^n  r:^^^)  etc.     Finally,  Hebrew    and   Aramaic   ivords   are  Ad^^Ptjon^ 
adopted/as  d/x^v,  ^a,  aXXrjXovia,   Kop(3av.   /xa^o^.^s,   pa/3/5owc,  -dArama-. 
—  as  also  Tracrxa,  which  is  formed  not  from  the  Hebrew  r,CS  , 
but  from  the  Aramaic  ^nCS  .     In  all  this  it  is  not  to  be  for- 
gotten, that  all  the   New   Testament    authors    are    far  from 
Hebraizing  to  the  same  extent.     Matthew  and  Mark  Hebraize 
more  than^John ;  the  author  of  the  Apooalypse  most  of  all,  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Hebrews  least  of  all.     Neither 
does  the  same  author  Hebraize  unformly,  e.g.  Luke  Hebraizes 
very  little  where  he  composes  freely,  very  strongly,  on  the 
other  hand,  when  he  bases  his  composition  on  Hebrew  sources. 

Under  the  Poman  domination  Latin  words^  also  found  their  Latinworda 
way  into  the  Jewish  Greek,  as   KevrvpCo^v,    K?,vao<;,    KovarcoSla, 
KoSpavrrj,,   X^ye^v,   fxaKiXXov,    ^pacr^pcav,    a7rcKovXdro>p,    rcrXo,, 
and  such  forms  of  expression  as  e^  H-^  Traprjrwevov,  avfxf^ovXiov 
Xa^^avav,  TO  Uavhv  .oulv  rcn.     The  majority  of  these  words 
and  forms  of  expression  occur  in  the  two  first  Gospels. 
14.  The  Specifically  Christian  Element. 
Finally,  the  specifically  Christian  linguistic  element  m  the 
New   Testament  is  to  be  observed,  to  which  Schleiermacher 
alread-y  called  attention  (see  his Hermen. pp. 6Gff.,  138  ff.)-  The 
Christian  element  of  the  biblical  language  must  appear  prmci- 
pally  in  the  religious  and  the  ethical  ideas.     These,  as  might  R^e.gous^ 
be  ;xpected,  differ  very  essentially  from  those  comnaon  among  ideas, 
the  Attic  writers,  as  well  as  among  the  ko.voc..     The  ethical 
1  Cf.  Art.  in  Bibliothcca  Sacra  for  1ST6.  —  Ta. 


130         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

idea  KaXo?  ^dya^os,  in  vogue  among  the  Greeks,  is  not  found 
at  all  in  the  New  Testament,  just  as  little  the  idea  so  essential 
with  the  Greeks  of  a<D(j>poavvrj.  The  idea  of  the  good  inhering 
in  man,  as  such,  which,  in  particular,  the  former  word  expresses, 
does  not  correspond  to  the  New  Testament  idea  ;  just  as  little 
does  the  fxrjhkv  aydv  express  accurately  what  the  New  Testament 
writers  understand  by  discretion,  and  such  like.  Not  less 
foreign  to  the  New  Testament  is  the  idea  of  the  avSpeia,  as  in 
general  the  tetrad  of  cardinal  virtues.  The  w^ord  dpeTrj  also, 
used  of  men,  is  extremely  rare  in  the  New  Testament.  We 
may  compare  also  the  antique  idea  of  BiKaLoa-vvrj  (see  Plat.  Rep. 
IV.  p.  433,  A)  with  the  biblical.  Scripture  knows  nothing  of 
Holiness  the  thought  that  man  is  the  measure  of  all  things.  On  the 
menta"  idea  Contrary,  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  New  Testament,  as  of 
^  e  .  .  ^^^  whole  Bible  in  general,  is  that  of  holiness.  This  idea,  in- 
deed, is  in  a  certain  sense  in  no  way  foreign  to  the  Greeks,  but 
it  is  interesting  to  observe  the  various  words  with  w4iich  the 
Greek  writers,  and  the  word  with  which  the  biblical  writers 
designate  the  idea  "  holy."  The  Greek  has  for  this  idea  the 
expressions  ayvo<5  (pure,  as  an  inherent  quality),  and  lepos 
(consecrated  through  sanction).  The  standing  biblical  ex- 
"hyios.  pression  for  this  is  ayio?,  used  in  the  first  instance  of  God  (Isa. 
vi.  3  ;  xl.  25  ;  xliii.  3,  and  elsewhere),  and  denotes,  first  of  all, 
not  precisely  moral  perfection,  but  exaltation  and  glory  reveal- 
ing itself,  that  which  inspires  with  reverence.  Then  also,  of 
course,  ayio?  means  spiritual  purity,  originally  and  in  an  abso- 
lute manner  ajDplicd  only  to  God  (Levit.  xix.  2  ;  also  Isa.  vi. 
3-5  ;  Habac.  i.  12, 13  ;  1  Pet.  i.  15, 16  ;  John  xvii.  11  coll.  Jas. 
i.  17  and  1  John  i.  5)  ;  then,  also,  derivatively  to  angels  and 
men  who  stand  of  communion  with  God  (Ps.  xvi.  3  ;  xxxiv.  9; 
Rom.  i.  7  ;  1  Cor.  i.  2  ;  iii.  17,  et  ah).  The  fundamental  idea 
is  the  opposite  to  the  common  and  the  profane ;  positively,  what 
Taveivds.  inspires  veneration.  It  is  likewise  very  peculiar  that  raTrctvo?, 
together  with  its  derivatives,  is  in  profane  Greek  commonly 
used  in  a  contemptuous  sense,  while  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
especially  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  never  applied  otherwise 


THE   N.  T.    LINGUISTIC    CHARACTER   IN   GENERAL.    131 

than  iu  the  good  sense.  Most  marked  also  is  the  idea  Koafxos,  k6(T(jlos. 
which  iu  classical  Greek  always  designates  ornament,  beautiful 
arrangement,  and  hence  the  beautifully  arranged  structure  of 
the  world  :  but  in  the  New  Testament  it  invariably  designates 
"  the  world  as  created  different  from  Gk)d  and  separated  from 
God,  yea  the  world  as  the  essence  of  ungodliness."  Further 
is  to  be  observed  /xeravoeoi  and  fxerdvoLa,  not  frequent  with  M^rdvoia, 
the  Greeks,  and  where  it  occurs,  for  the  most  part  only  in 
the  sense  "  to  think  otherwise,"  "  to  become  of  another  opin- 
ion " ;  whereas  in  the  Xew  Testament,  and  especially  in  Luke, 
it  is  a  standing  idea,  and  never  signifies  anything  else  than  the 
moral-religious  change  of  mind,  conversion.  That  the  classical 
meaning  of  the  word  ttlcttl^  falls  far  below  that  of  the  New  Wkttis, 
Testament  is  self-evident ;  but  even  in  the  LXX  this  word,  as 
well  as  [xeTavoia,  is  rare.  It  is  remarkable,  also,  that  the  word 
dydmj,  a  leading  idea,  as  is  well-known,  in  the  New  Testament,  ^Aydnr]. 
is  almost  completely  foreign  to  the  profane  Greek.  Instead  of 
this  the  Greek  has  ^iXta,  (piXavOpoiTTLa,  which  is  not  the  same. 
But  even  in  the  LXX  dydirri  and  ayaTraw  are  comparatively 
rare.  One  of  the  most  characteristic  marks  of  the  difference 
between  the  New  Testament  and  the  profane  Greek  is  the  word 
Xapts  :  the  meaning  "  agreeableness,  gracefulness,"  is  entirely  x<ff»«» 
foreign  to  the  New  Testament ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  means 
constantly  "  friendliness,  favor,"  but  especially  "  (divine)  grace." 
Cf.  on  the  subject  generally  Zetzschwitz,  Profangracitiit  und 
biblischen  Sprachgeist.  1859.  II.  Crcmer,  Biblisch  -  theolo- 
gisches  Worterbuch  der  Neutestamentlichen  Griicitat,^  2.  Aufl. 
1872.  \_Trench,  New  Testament  Synonyms.  Grimm's  edition 
of  Wilke's  N.  T.  Lexicon,  of  which  an  English  translation  by 
Pi'of.  Tha3"er  of  Andovcr  is  soon  to  be  published.  See  also 
the  Syllabus  of  Dr.  /.  A.  Broadus  appended  to  this  volume]. 

1  Cremcr's  "  BibIico-thcoIo<rical  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament  Greek 
(1st  cd  ),  has  been  publi^ied  in  English  hy  T.  and  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh. 
While  it  is  extremely  valuable,  even  in  that  form,  the  new  edition  is  very 
greatly  improved,  and  treats  one  hundred  and  twenty  additional  words. 
It  is  hoped  that  a  seeond  edition  of  the  translation  will  not  be  long  in 
appearing.  —  Tr. 


132  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 


h.   The  Linguistic  Peculiarities  of  the  different  Neio  Testament 

Writers} 

15.   General   Survey. 

If  the  general  linguistic  character  of   the  New  Testament 

may  be  compared  with  the  warp  of  the  texture,  the  linguistic 

peculiarities  of  tlie  individual  authors  may  be  comi:)ared  with  its 

Tlie  co.ffni-   woof.     The  cognizance  of  the  latter  is  quite  a  modern  affair, 

zanceuflin-  .  .,,  ,  ,         n  i  •  i  •  i  •  -it^i 

^iiUWc  pe-   and  is  still  capable  of  much  enrichmg  and  correction.      VV  hat 
oi  Individ-    has  up  to  the  present  time  been  accomplished  in  this  depart- 
a'modern     ment,  has  been  rather  in  the  interest  of  criticism  than  of  exe- 
^^^*  gesis.     The  proof  of  the  linguistic  peculiarities  must,  of  course, 

furnish  its  principal  support  to  criticism,  but  the  cognizance  of 
the  grammatical,  lexical,  and  stylistic  particularities  of  the  indi- 
vidual writers  is  also  important  for  exegesis  and  conditions 
insight  into  the  spirit  and  the  circle  of  thought  of  the  writers. 

Kature  of    The  linguistic  differences  of  the  New  Testament  authors  are  by 
differences.  ,.     .      ,  ,  „  ,  ^-  tt  i 

no  means  limited  to  the  greater  or  smaller  number  oi  Hebra- 
isms, to  the  greater  or  smaller  degree  of  the  purity  of  their 
Greek,  but  have  regard  also  to  p'eculiar  expressions,  modes  of 
speaking,  constructions,  and  turns  that  have  nothing  to  do  with 

Accidental    Hebraisms  and  Aramaisms.     But  to  the  linguistic  peculiarities 
expressions  ,         ,     n  ,  .  i  i 

net  linpuis-  of  an  author  belong  not  such  expressions  and  turns  as  may  be 

tic  peculiar-  .i,  -t  ii-  i-  i  i  i.i 

ities.  considered  accidental,  having  their  ground,  as  they  do,  in  the 

plan  of  the  given  writing,  or  in  the  subject  to  be  treated,  or 

Soofacci-    in  the  circumstances  under  which  the  author  wrote.     Just  as 

faults.  little  are  the  accidental  faults  of  an  author  to  be  regarded  as 

Linguistic    lin£;uistic  peculiarities.     But  what  do  come  under  this  head  are 

peculiar!-  '^  *■  /.'in  p      i  • 

ties  proper,  expressions,  modes  of  speech,  and  turns,  of  which         1)  it  can 
be  shown  that  ,in  such  a  case  the  other  author  would,  as  a  rule, 

1  On  the  liniruistic  peculiarities  of  the  various  New  Testament  writings, 
cf.  the  very  able  Articles  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible.  Though  in  some 
instances,  perhaps,  clinging  too  fondly  to  traditional  views,  and  not  allow- 
ing due  weight  to  the  results  of  modern  criticism;  yet  they  form  a  valuable 
safeguard  against  much  of  the  criticism  of  recent  German  writers,  who  are 
too  prone  to  regard  every  traditional  view  against  whifh  can  be  established 
the  slightest  suspicion,  as  utterly  set  aside,  and  put  beyond  profitable 
discussion.  —  Tr. 


THE   LINGUISTIC   PECULIARITIES.  133 

have  used  different  ones  ;  which       2)  stand  in  connection  with 

the  peculiar  circle  of  thought  and  the  peculiar  doctrinal  idea  of 

the  author  under  consideration,  and  which      3)  furnish  a  proof 

of  the  author's  siDCcial  form  of  thonqht.     Such  peculiarities  are  Importance 
,  -,,••,     1      1  1         -..  ,  ofsuchcrit- 

especially  there  to  be  established  where  several  undisputed  kism. 

writings  of  the  same  author,  or  at  least  one  writing  of  greater 
compass,  is  at  hand ;  or  where  an  important  and  definite  origin- 
ality is  to  be  vindicated.  A  practised  eye  will  also  know  how 
to  observe  more  minute  and  more  delicate  differences  of  style. 
We  adduce  here  only  what  is  more  essential,  leaving  the  rest 
for  further  investigation. 

16.   The  Linguistic  Character  of  Paul. 

The  linguistic  character  of  the  Apostle  Paul  is  most  certainly  Undisputed 
determined,  if  we  confine  ourselves  at  first  to  the  writings  of    ^^"^ 
undisputed  genuineness,  viz.  to  Romans,  1  and  2  Corinthians, 
and  Galatians,  and  then  compare  the  other  Pauline  writings 
with  these.       a)   What  strikes  the  reader  of  the  Pauline  writ-  Dialectic 

chi3.r2.ct6i* 

ings  most  forcibly  of  all  is  the  dialectic  character  and  the  flow 
of  the  discources.  Hence  the  frequent  occurrence  of  such 
formulae  as  rC  ovv  ipovfxev  or  merely  rt  ovv ;  epct?  ovv  and 
oAA.'  epet  TL<s,  Tt  yap,  ttQ)';  ovv,  apa  ovv,  A.ey(o  Si  or  uAXa  Xcyw  and 
TovTo  Sk  Xeyco,  et  yap  and  et  Si,  the  logical  ovkctl,  ov  jxovcv  Sc  . . , 
aXXd,  ovK  otSare  on  .  .  .  ,  etc.  Here  belong  also  the  frequent 
introduction  of  possible  objections,  as  in  Rom.  vi.  1,  lo  ;  ix.  14  ; 
xi.  1,19;  1  Cor.  ix.  4  f. ;  x.  19,  22  ;  xv.  29,  30  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  1  ; 
xi.  7,  et  al.  ;  further,  the  frequent  arguments  ex  absurdo,  as  in 
Rom.  ii.  17  ff.  ;  vi.  Iff.;  ix.  14  ;  xi.  1  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  15  ff.  ;  xiv. 
23  ;  XV.  12-19,  29  ff. ;  Gal.  ii.  14.  b)  There  are,  furthermore,  Favorite 
to  be  observed  certain  favorite  turns,  as  yvojpt^w  Si  v/juv  and 
ov  OcXii)  Se  vjxa<;  dyi'octv,  wcrTrep  with  ovrco?,  Aoyt^o/zat  yap  .  .  . , 
ov)(   olov    Si  .  .  . ,   Ktt^'    avQpoyTTov   (^avOpcDTTLvov)   A-cyo),   etc.  c) 

Strokes  of  wit  and  play  on  words,  as  <p06vos  and  (f>6vo<;,  dcrwctos  piav  on 
and  dcrui/^ero?,  avopioq  and  evvoixo<;,  a^pcov  and  cfipovL/xo^,  Slo.  vojxov 
vojxio  aTriOavov,  and  the  like  ;  but  especially  such  play  on  words 
as  contains  an  acumen  of  thought,  as  Rom.  ii.  14  (v6/xo<s  in  the 
same  proposition  with  different  meanings),  xiv.  13  (KpiVetv  in 
11 


134  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   TEE   INTERPRETER. 

the  same  way),  1  Cor.  ii.  13  {XoyoL  StSaKTOL  in  the  same  way), 
iv.  8  (ySacrtAevcti/  in  a  similar  way),  2  Cor.  iii.  13-15  (KaXr/z/Aa 
in  just  the  same  way),  v.  16  (Kara  adpKa  idem),  v.  21  (d/xapTta 

Oxymora.  in  a  similar  manner),  Gal.  iv.  21  (i/o/xo?  idem),  etal.  d)  Oxy- 
mora,  e.g.  ra  dopara  .  .  .  KaOoparai  Rom.  i.  20  ;  -nap  iX-TriSa  lir 
IXtti^l  Rom.  iv.  18  ;  ixwpos  yevecrOu),  Iva  yiinrjraL  o-d^os  iCor.  iii.  18 ; 
tAcv^cpos  wv  . . .  ijxavTov  iSovXwcra  1  Cor.  ix.  19  ;  i^/xcts  ol  ^u)vt€<s 
CIS  Odvarov  TrapaStSo/xe^a  2  Cor.  iv.  11  ;  d)9  irXdvoL  kcll  dXr]OeL<s 
2  Cor.  vi.  8  ;  ws  dyvoov'/xcvot  kol  iTnyLvojcrKofxevoL  2  Cor.  v.  9  ; 
8id  vofxov  v6/xoi  oLTrWavov  Gal.  ii.  19.  But  the  sharpest  oxymora 
are  1  Cor.  i.  25  :  to  fxwpGv  tov  6cov  aocfiOTepov  tSjv  avOpuyTrmv,  and 

Antitheses.  2  Cor.  xii.  10   orav  daOevC),  totc  hvvaro'i  eljxL.  e)   Antitheses, 

which  often  stand  in  connection  with  Paul's  doctrinal  idea,  as 
crdp^  and  TTvctyxa,  i/djao?  (ep-ya  vofxov)  and  Trto-ri?,  ypdfjLfia  and 
TTver/xa,    SovXol    (SgvXclo)    and   iXevOepot  {cXevOepia),  fxwpla  and 

Kinds  of      cro<^ta,  aTToAAv/xevot  and  crco^d/xei/oi,  et  al.        f)   Paul's  dialectic 

argumeu  .  jj^gj-j^Q^^j  ^^  teaching  brings  with  it  various  kinds  of  argument ; 
we  may  distinguish    the    following   princij-ial    classes :  a) 

Logical  proof,  in  the  narrower  sense  :  Rom.  ii.  25-29 ;  xi.  6, 
15,  IG  ;  x.  13-15  (a  regular  Sorites)  ;  /3)  Arguments  from 
analogy  (arguments  Kara  avyKaTajSaaiv)  :  Gal.  iii.  15  and  iv. 
1  ff. ;  1  Cor.  ix.  13  ;  xiv.  7  ff. ;  xv.  36  fP. ;  Rom.  vii.  Iff.;  y) 
Arguments  from  Christian  experience  :  Gal.  iii.  1-5  ;  1  Cor.  i. 
26  ff. ;  Rom.  vii.  9-25  ;  8)  Scriptural  arguments  :  these 
serve  sometimes  as  themes  for  the  deductions  to  follow,  as  Gal. 
iii.  6f.,  16f.;  ICor.x.  Iff.;  Rom.  iv.  3  ff.  ;  x.  13  f. ;  xi.2f.; 
sometimes  as  a  confirmatory  conclusion,  as  1  Cor.  i.  31  ;  xv. 
26,  54,  55  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  15  ;  x.  17  ;  Rom.  ii.  24  ;  ix.'  33.  Al- 
thougli  all  the  New  Testament  writers  make  use  of  arguments 

Paul's  man-  from  the  Old  Testament,  yet  Paul  has  in  this  respect  many  a 

norolciting  t       •  -i   ^  i      ^  in,-  ,.  , 

O.  T.  pas-     peculiarity ;  although  he  quotes  the  Scripture  passage  for  the 
cages.  ^^^^  ^^^^  according  to  the  LXX,  yet  here  and  there  with  re- 

gard to  the  original  text ;  often  pretty  faithfully,  yet  oftener 
with  mere  or  less  freedom,  partly  from  memory,  partly  accom- 
modated to  the  intention  of  his  discourse  ;  for  the  most  part 
without  any  reference  to  the  local  sense  and  connection  of  the 


THE  LINGUISTIC   PECULIARITIES.  135 

Old  Testament  passage  cited,  sometimes  pressing  the  letter, 
sometimes  applying  Rabbinical  allegory  and  typology.  The 
expressions  rj  ypa<prj  Xiy^i,  KaOQ)<s  yiy pairrai,  or  Ma)i5o-iys  (  Hcratas) 
Xcyet  are  with  him  usual  formulae  for  citations.  Often  he 
joins  various  passages  of  Scripture  together,  which  are  then 
united  merely  by  the  subjective  intention  of  the  Apostle,  as 
2  Cor.  vi.  16-18 ;  Rom.  iii.  9-18 ;  ix.  25-29 ;  x.  16-21,  et  al. 
Finally,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  Paul,  more  than  any 
other  New  Testament  writer,  reveals  in  his  discourses  his  per- 
sonal experiences  and  relations  to  his  readers;  cf.  Gal.  i.  23, 
24;ii.  1-10,  llff.;  iv.  12-16  ;  vi.  17  ;  1  Cor.  i.  14-17;  ii.  1-4; 
iii.  1,  2;  iv.  3,  4,  6-13,  15-20;  ix.  1-6,  11-23;  xv.  9,  10; 
2  Cor.  i.  8  ff.,  23,  24;  ii.  1-4,  12,  13;  iii.  1-6;  iv.  7  f . ;  vi. 
1-10,  11, 12  ;  vii. ;  x.  1-6  ;  xi.  5-12, 16-33  ;  xii.  1-10,  11-21 ; 
Rom.  i.  9-13,  etal. 

17.    Linguistic  Character  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles. 

The  linguistic  character  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  —  whatever 
may  be  thought  with  reference  to  their  Pauline  authorship  — 
differs  very  observably  from  all  the  rest  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  Without  giving  here  a  complete  catalogue  of  the  Pauline  ex- 
Pauline  and  the  un-Pauline  expressions  and  turns,  we  adduce 
of  both  kinds  those  that  are  most  characteristic.  Pawline, 
or  at  least  chiming  in  with  the  Pauline,  are  the  following  ex- 
pressions and  modes  of  speech  :  X/aio-ros  6  Sovq  kavTov  vTrep  rjixuiv 

1  Tim.  ii.  6 ;  KOTndu)  of  the  apostolic  work,  1  Tim.  v.  17 ; 
irXovrelv  iv  epyot?  ayaOols  1  Tim.  vi.  18  ;  dStaXetTrrov  €)(€lv  ^vctW 

2  Tim.  i.  3  ;  iTmroOio  ere  iSetv  2  Tim.  i.  4  ;  ov  7rvev/xa  SetXeiag, 
dAAo,  SwajjiUDq  2  Tim.  i.  7  ;  eTrato-p^t'vecr^at  to  fiaprvpiov  tov  Kvptov 
2  Tim.  i.  8  ;  ov  Kara  to.  tpya,  aXka  Kara  ttjv  TrpoOea-tv  2  Tim.  i.  9 ; 
rj  X^P'-'^  1  ^oOetaa  rjixlv  iv  XptoTw  ^Irjcrov  ibid. ;  to  ivoLKovv  iv  vp2v 
TTvei'/xa  2  Tim.  i.  14  ;  'It^o-oCs  ILpLaro'^  iK  crTrep/xaros  Aaiji6  2  Tim. 
ii.  8  ;  TO  evayyiXiov  fxov  2  Tim.  ii.  8  ;  the  antithesis  avvaTroOvj- 
o-K«v  and  o-vt,r]v  2  Tim.  ii.  11  ;  in  the  greeting  IlaL'Ao";  aTroo-ToXos 
8ta  6€\rjixaro<i  .  .  .  ,  and  flprjvrj  oltto  Oeov  Trarpos  k.  It^ctoi!  X.pi.a-Tov 
and  in  the  closing  benediction  6  KvpLo<;  /xera  tov  Trvev/xaros  crou. 
Expressions  and  turns,  that  are  not  Pauline,  or  are  decidedly 


136  SINGLE    OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

TJn-Pauiine  uii-Pauline,  occur,  on  the  other  hand,  very  frequently ;  among 
xpresbions  ^j^^^^  ^^|^  ^j^^  ^^^j.  g^j-jj^jug  ^eed  here  be  brought  forward : 

crepoStSacTKaAetv,  17  vyLvaiovaa  8iSao-KaA.€ia  and  vyiatVovre?  Xoyot, 

the  frequent  evaepcia,   'ipyov  in  the  sense  of  office  or  calling, 

fxaprvpLa    repute,  ^aO/xov  eavrw    TrepiTToulcrOai,   the   eKKXrjaLa  as 

aTvXos   K.   iSpaLiofxa  t^s   aXy]Oe.ta<;,  to  [xvaTi^pLov  tt}?  ct^cre/Jeta?,  -^ 

KaXa  StSao-KaXta,  ovrcos  in  such   expressions  as  17  oVtws  ^0^17,  at 

6vT0)<;  ^-^pai ;   eTraKoXovOeiv  ^yw   dya^w,  17   Kar'  evae/Seiav  StSacr- 

KaAta,  TTjpexv  rrjv  ivroXrjv  aaTTLXov,  a7ro6rjaavpLt,€Lv  cavTO)  Oe/xiXLov, 

TrapaOrjKT]    faith    that   has    been   delivered  over,  especially  the 

Absence  of  often  recurring  iricrro^  6  Ao'yos,  and  many  others.     Not  less  re- 

Siine       markable  than  the  presence  of  so  many  un-Pauline  expressions 

preTsio'n.^^'  and  turns  is  the  absence  of  all  [?]  genuine  Pauline  forms  of 

expression,  and  of  the  dialectic  and  rhetorical  peculiarities  of 

the  Apostle,  see  §  IG. 

E8.   Linguistic  Character  of  Hebrews. 

The  linguistic  character  of  the  Epistle  to  the  liehrews^  is  in 
Purity  of  another  re-epect  different  from  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The 
Greek  is  in  general  purer  and  more  periodical  than  that  of 
most  of  the  other  New  Testament  authors.  The  style  is  more 
discursive  than  that  of  the  Pauline  and  other  Epistles.  In 
Lexical  pe-  jmrticular  is  to  be  observed  a)  in  a  lexical  point  of  view  : 
dyeveaA-oyT^TOS,  ayKvpa  (metaphorical),  dyvo-jy/xa,  (x^At^cti?,  ai/xarcK- 
yycTLa  (a  air.  Acy.),  alaBrjrijpioVy  oKpoTLviov,  ajxyjTiop,  aTrdrwp, 
dvaXoyt^eo-^at,  avapiOfxTjTOS,  avo.aravpovv  to  crucify  anew,  dv- 
rayovt^ccr^at,  aTrapd^aros,  diravyoapa,  d/7/xo?,  dc^avicr fxa^^  ycveaAo- 
yelfrdaL,  yecupyetv,  yvo<^o9,  SdfxaXi<s,  SeKarovv,  Si7]veKr]<i,  and  ci?  to 
SL7]veK€<i,  8vo-ep/^ryvevro9,  eyyvo^,  e/XTraty^os,  evTroua,  OeaTpi^eiv, 
OviXXa,  KaKOV)(€L&0aL,  Koraf^aXXeo-OaL,  OejxeXioi',  KaTaaKOTro^y 
KpiTLKO'i  (aTT.  Aey.),  Xftroi^pytKos,  Aei"tTtK05,  fxeaLTevcLv  (d-rr.  Aey.), 
fieTptoTraOeiv  (aTT..  Aey.),  fXLo-OaTroScaia ,  and  /xta 6 air oSorrjf;,  rj 
fxeXXovaa  oLKovpieir),  oXoOpcveiv  (yet  see  6Xo6pevTrj<;  I  Cor.  x.  10), 
opxofxocria,  TrapaTTiKpaiveLV,  TrapaTrXrjaiO}^,  TrcAvrpoTrwq,  7rp6Spofxo<Sf 
avyKaKovya.a6au   avv€7nfxapTvpiLV,  Tpa^rjXl^iaOaL,  Tpipirjvov,  tv/x- 

1  Cf.  Introductions  to  the  Commentaries  of  Siiiart,  Bleek,  DcWeite,  and 
Winer.  —  Tr. 


THE  LINGUISTIC   PECULIARITIES.  137 

7ravLt,€LV,  \apaKTnp,  ov  Ycopts  •  •  • ,  ws  ctto?  elTreiv,  et  al.  B)   In  Grammat- 

.      ,         .        \.      .  ,  ,  ,      ical  peculi- 

a  grammaticai  jDOint  oi  view  we  observe,  among  others,  the  arities. 
following :  The  frequent  occurrence  of  Tvapa,  tl  after  compara- 
tives, the  frequent  use  of  participles  in  caural  connections,  the 
frequent  use  of  eVet  (in  Paul  only  in  the  sense  "  since  more- 
over") and  oOeu.         y)    As  regards  the    rhetoric,    the    many  Rhetorical 
argumenta  a  minori  ad  majus  (et  ...  ttoo-w  fxaXkov  .  .  .)   and  ties. Z'^"" 
the  transition  with  ocrov  (kuO^  ocrov)  are  the  principal  points  to 
be  noticed. 

19.   Linguistic  Character  of  the  Epistle  of  James. 

The  linguistic  character  of  the  Epistle  of  James  may"  be  Opposite  of 
designated  as  the  precise  opposite  of  that  of  the  Pauline  writ-  writings, 
ings.     The   difference  is   observable   already  in  the  fact,  that 
here  little  or  no  use  is  made  of  dialectic  arguing.     James  con- 
vinces not  so  much  through  logical  grounds  as  through  examples. 
These  examples  are  derived  partly  from  the  natural  features  of  Examples. 
the  Palestinian  country,  as  i.  11 ;  iii.  11,  12  ;  partly  from  ordi- 
nary human  life,   as  i.  23;  ii.  2  f . ;  15  f.;  iii.  3,  4,  7  ;  partly 
from   biblical   history,  see  ii.  21,  25;  v.  10,  11,  17,  18.     He 
also  carries  out  his  figures  well,  see  i.  11,  24  ;  ii.  2,  3 ;  iii.  7  ; 
iv.  4,  et  al.     A  ready  device  with  James  to  produce  an  effect 
on  his  readers  is  the  apostrophe,  cf.  ii.  18,  19,  20,  22  ;  iv.  4,  Apostrophe 
13  f. ;  V.  1— G,  and  the  rhetorical  question,  cf.  ii.  5,  6,  7  ;  14-16,  Rhetorical 

.         question. 

20;  iii.  11,  12,  13;    iv.  1,  4,  5..     Among    other  grammatical  {^.nxmmait' 
peculiarities  are  the  use  of  the  Aorist  in  descriptions,  as  i.  11;  iruies.'^"^** 
i.  24 ;  iv.  5  ;  of  the  prophetic  Perfect  in  the  apostrophe  v.  2,  3  ; 
further,  of  the  demonstrative  pronoun  with  epexegesis  follow- 
ing, see  i.  27  cf.  iv.  1 ;  the  frequent  use  of  hi  as  a  continua- 
tive  particle,  and  of  the  Kai  consequentiae  ;  also  the  omission  of 
conditional  particles  in  conditional  propositions.     Tlie  lexical  Lexical  pe- 
peculiarities  to  be  observed  are  :  Pare  words  (in  pa)-t  air.  Aey.), 
as  aKaracTTaTos,  (XTroKt'cu.  airap-^  tCjv  KTiajxaTUiV,  aaTriXo?  oltto  .  .  . , 
l3pv€LV,     heXed^eaOai,     St'i//v;>(os,     ivaXto^,     iTnXyja-fxovrj,    ev)(r]    rrjq 
TTLCTTeu)';,  eaOrjs  (elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  only  in  Luke's  writings), 
6prjaKo<:,  Ka^icrra/xat  (apparently  for  ccrrt  or  virapx'^t),  /carT^^cta 
(parallel  with   irivOo^),  KaKOTra^eta,   KafxviLv  to  be  sick,  Kavauiv* 
12* 


138  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPEETER. 

KaraSwaaTevo),  fj.€.yaXav^a.v^  ojxoL07ra6rj<;,  7rapaXoyit,€aOaL  eavroi/, 
TrpoawTroXrprreli;  7rcXva7rXdy)(vo<;,  pvTrapia  in  a  moral  sense, 
pLTTL^caOai,  cr'qr6(3po}TO<iy  (jinXovv^  aTraTaXdw,  rpvcf^dw,  p^aXtvayw- 
yelv,  ;!(pvo-oSaKrvAtc9,  ct  al. ;  furthermore,  peculiar  meanings  of 
0jy^l'-7  words  as  ttols  only,  merely,  Soki/xlov  genuineness,  'n-Xova-Los 
throughout  in  a  bad  sense  (as  with  Luke),  o-uvayoyy-^  Christian 
assembly,  epyov  business,  Kpdt,€Lv  to  cry  to  Heaven,  etc. ;  such 
combinations  as  cvTrpeVeta  tov  TrpoawTrov,  Trarrjp  tijjv  ^ojtojv, 
Tp07rrj<;  aTTOcrKLdcr^a,  airap-^r]  tCjv  KrtajJidTwv,  v6ixo<i  t?}s  iXevOcpLa<s, 
v6jxo<;  /?a(TtXtKos,  dKpoaTrj<;  e—iXr^cr/xov^S,  ;^aXti/aycoyetj/  rr/v  yXojar- 
aav,  Opr](TK€La  KaOapd  k.  dfjiLavTOS,  iv  TrpocwTroXT^i^tats  ^X^^^  "^V^ 
TTi(TTiVy  TTTOi-xol  TOV  KoafJiov,  OLfxapTLav  lpyd^caOe.L,  i(f>7jix€po<s  Tpocf>rj, 
Tj  TTicTTi?  CTVvypyeL  TOL<;  epyots,  SLKaLOiaOat  l^  tpytov,  Koa-fxo^;  rrj^ 
dSiKta?,  rp6)(oq  tt}?  ycvecrew?,  Trpavrr]?  aocfiLa^;,  TroXva7rXdy)(yo<;  k. 
OLKTipfJUjjv,  7rpoa€v)^€(T0aL  Ittl  riva,  Trpoae.v'^caOai  with  infinitive 
with  TOV,  Some  of  these  expressions  bear  a  relation  to  the 
peculiar  doctrinal  idea  of  James. 

20.   The  Johannean  Linguistic  Character. 

Vorypecu-  The  Johannean  linguistic  character  —  as  it  appears  in  the 
GosjDcl  and  in  the  first  Epistle  —  is  certainly  a  very  peculiar 
one.  The  language  of  this  writer  is  poor,  but  inward,^  unperi- 
odical  and  inelegant,  but  profound  ;  without  logical  and  dialec- 
tic acuteness,  but  full  of  ideal  thoughts  ;  exalted  thoughts  in 

Prediiec-      childlike  form.     Descending  to  details  we  may  observe  :         a) 

tion  for  ,.,.,.,...  ^  ,  ^,  , 

diminutives  the    2:>reailectlon    lor    dimuJUtives,    as    TratOaptoi/,   TratOia,   rcKi/ta, 

Peculiar       oipdpiov,  TrXoidpiov ;         yS)   such  expressions  as  are  chiefly  and 

such  as   are   exclusively  limited   to  this    author,  d/xryi/,  d^rjv, 

a.X'qOLVofi,  dp-^div  tov  Koa/xov,  dvaaTrjvat  (never  eyetpecr^ai),  o  clTrecr- 

raX/xeVo?,   B6$a  and  So^d^eLv,   Icr^^drr]  rjfiepa    (aipa),  ^ojr/,  $dvaTO<; 

(in  a  pregnant  sense),  BedaOac,  Oeajpetv,  ol  iStot  and  rd  Idia  (home), 

*l(i)dvv7]?  (of  the  Baptist,  never  with  ySaTrrto-Tr^s),  the  loosely 

connecting  Kat  (extremely  frequent,  whereas  Se  is  very  rare), 

Kpdt,€Lv  to  speak  with  emphasis,  Kptcrt?  and  Kpiv€Lv  for  the  most 

part  in  an  ideal  sense,  KOdfxo^  (very  frequent),  XiOd^^tv  (never 

XiOoJSoXelv),  Aoyos  hypostaticaliy,  fjLapTvp€Lv  and  fxapTvpta  (yet 

i"Inniij." 


THE  LINGUISTIC   PECULIARITIES.  139 

never  ftaprvq),  /aoi/oycvTJs  used  of  Jesus,  ovofxa  chiefly  in  such 
combinations    as    Trca-TcveLv  ct's   to   ovofia,    ev  tw  ovoyuart,  6x^o<s 
(never  Aaos),  7rapdK\rjTo<5  advocatus,  Trapot/uta  (newer  TrapafScXy), 
TTia^etv,  TTLCTTeveLv  (very  frequent,  yet  never  ttlo-tl^),  arK6To<;  and 
(TKOTia  tropically,  TiOivai  ttjv  il/vxrjv  (never  7rapaStSoi/at  iavrov), 
<f>av€povv    (never    aTroKa\v7rT€Lv),  (^oo?   metaphorical  and  preg- 
nant,        y)   Frequent  turns,  as  the  weakened  use  of  Tva  not  Weakened 
only  after  verba  jubendi  et  orandi,  but  also  after  ovtos,  after  etc.^^^^""' 
lx€t^oiv,  etc. ;  the  elliptical  aXA'  tW,  frequent  continuation  of  the 
narrative    through    ovv,  especially  in   such  turns   as  TroL-qaare 
dva7r€(r€LV,    aviTrecrov    ovv ;    crwayayere,    crvviyayov   ovv    and    the 
like ;  frequent   Asyndeta,    frequent  casus  absoluti,  etc.         8) 
Peculiar  collocations  of  words,  such  as  the  following :    ovScv  Peculiar 
usually  after  the  verb,  yjS-q  as  a  rule  before ;  Aeyct  likewise  pre-  of  words, 
ceding,  especially  in  lively  conversation  ;  ak-qO-^g  usually  before 

the  verb,  aXrjOa)?  after  it.  c)   Peculiar  forms  of  expression,  Peculiar 

^„>/D/  >v»\/>v  ,     \  /l.^        forms  of  ex- 

e.g.    avapatvcLV   et?   tov  ovpavov   (Trpos    tov   TraTcpa),    yevvrjt-rjvaL  pression. 

avoiSev  {Ik  tov  6eov),  eyw  elfXL  (pregnant),  ctvat  ck  tov  Ocov  (Ik 

Tys  aXr]0€La<;,  cac  tov  Koa/JLOv),  eTvac  iv  t(Z  TruTpl  (iv  tw  vl(2),  jx€vclv 

iv  TO)  Trarpt    (iv  tw  vlio),   iv  TovT(a  yivwo-/co/x€i/,   €p)(€o-OaL  €is  tov 

Koo-fxov,    epx^a-Oat    Trpo?  .  .  .    (pregnant),    tpx<^Tai    wpa    {kcll    vvv 

icTTiv),  ^wr/i/  e;(€ti/  (ei/  cavrw),  KaraySatj/eiv  ck  toC  ovpavov,  XaXeii/ 

(Trcicrv)  a(/)   cavTov,  /xextt^atVetv  e/c  rov  OavaTOV   .  .  . ,   6  K6aixo<s  ov 

Xaij.(3dv€i   (ov   ytvt-JO-Ket),    TrepiTraTCtv    ct/   to)    ^wrt  (eV  t^  rjfxepa), 

TTOLCiv  TTjv  dXrjOcLav,  TiOivai    Tr]v  xjrvxrjv,  et  al.       Most  of  these 

expressions  are  intimately  connected  w^ith  the  peculiar  doctrinal 

contents  of  the  Johannean  writings.    What  is  most  remarkable  Absence  of 

£      11    •     ii  ^'1  p    >      \        /         3         /x  „    someimpor- 

01  all  IS  tiie  entire  absence  oi  eKKArja-La,  cvayyeAtov,  /ierai/oeti/ tant  words. 

and  fxeTovoia,  TreLpao-fJios,  Trpoaevxy,  cro^ta,  vTro/xovy. 

21.   Linguistic  Character  of  the  Apocalypse. 

The  linguistic  character  of  the  Apocalypse  ^  stands  in  a  Peiation  of 
pecuhar  relation  to  that  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  On  the  one  !hoGfs''p.of 
hand,  both   writings  have  something  in  common,  as  dX-qOivog,  '^^^^' 

1  Cf.  Introductions  to  the  Commentaries  of  Stuart  and  Diisterdieck; 
also  the  works  on  N.  T.  Introduction,  Bleek,  De  Wette,  Damdson,  Home, 
etc.  —  Tr. 


140  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

yefiL^CLV,  i/SpaicTTL,  eKKevrelv,  6av}xat,^LV  8ta  rt,  Xt'^ivo?,  fxavva,  oij/i? 
(countenance,  face),  Trta^ctv,  Tropc^voov^,  A.oyos  of  Christ  (but 
followed  by  Oeov),  o-ktjvovv,  o-raSios,  frequently  recurring  r-qpilv 
(tov  Xoyov,  ra?  eVroXas),  <fiOLVL$,  <jipiap  — also  the  often  recur- 
ing  apri  and  8ta  tovto.  On  the  other  hand,  almost  all  the  most 
characteristic  expressions  and  turns  of  the  fourth  Gospel  and 
Pecuiiari-  of  1  John  are  wanting  in  the  Apocalypse.  Conversely  the 
Apocalypse.  Apocalyptic  has  a  great  multitude  of  expressions,  and  in  part 
very  distinctive  expressions,  that  are  wanting  in  the  Evangelist. 
The  following  are  the  most  important :  a/xo)ju,os,  dvaTravo-t?, 
a7rap)0,  aTroStSovat,  apviov  (never  afxvosi),  dp;(atos,  avros  pleo- 
nastically  after  os,  frequently  recurring  apxh  SetTryeiv,  SiaOrjicr], 
SvvafxL^  (frequently),  etKojv,  €iS(i)\oXarpr]<i,  ct  rt?  .  .  . ,  ck  as  l^ 
(i/tKai/  CK  et  al.),  eKSiKelv,  eKKXrjcTLa,  ofxvvuv  Iv  .  .  .  ,  dyopd^ctv 
ev  .  .  .  ,  Iv  TaL<;  r][xipai<;  cKCtVaig,  liofMoXoycLaOai,  eTnOvixeLv,  Ippivrjy 
eiayyiXiov,  evXoyia,  ^.v^^apiar ta,  €)(6po<;,  o  Oco<s  kul  Trarrjp.,  Oepa-eta, 
ISov  (never  tSe  as  in  t^ie  Evangelist), 'le/oovcraXrj/x  (never 'I epoo-o- 
Xv/xa),  tcrx^eiv  and  lo-xvs,  kul  in  the  apodosis,  KaraKaUiv  (never 
KauLv),  KaTca-OuLv,  KarotKeu',  KYjpvaacLv,  xlvuv  (never  TapdaaeLv), 
KXrjpovofxeiv^  KX-qro?,  koiv6<5,  kti^civ  and  KTL<n<i,  iv  Kvpioj,  Xarpcvetv, 
fxaprvpcLv  to  suffer  death  as  a  martyr  (cf.  the  Gospel  xxi.  19 
So$dt,€Lv  TOV  Ocov),  ixdpTvs  (Gospcl  Hcver,  although  fiapTvpeiv 
and  fiaprvpta  often),  fxaprvpiov,  fxe~avo€iv,  ixvariqpLov,  $vXov  tree, 
TOV  before  the  Infinitive,  olKovn^ivrj  (Gosp.  only  k6(tixo<s),  oc^Orjvai 
(Gosp.  OTTTCcr^at),  oo-to?,  ocfjeXov  utinam,  TrapdSctcroq,  TreipaafMO'Sj 
irevOciv  (Gosp.  never,  but  KAavctv,  Oprjiecv,  XvTreLaOai),  7rLcrrL<i 
(Gosp.  never,  often  as  TriareviLv  occurs),  TrciixaivcLv  (is  not  even 
found  Gosp.  X.),  iroLeiv  manage  one's  affairs,  -n-poa-iv-xf),  TrpoaoiTrov, 
TrptDTOTOKos  (Gosp.  never,  but  /xoroycvr;?),  aKOTL^cLv  (Gosp.  never, 
though  cTKOTia  or  ctkoVo?  occur  so  often),  ao^ta,  o-TT^pi^cti/,  crvy- 
KOLvoyveiv  (Gosp.  and  1  Ep.  never,  although  KOLvwvLav  ex^Lv  occurs), 
cr<fi6Spa,  (j^payU  (Gosp.  never,  although  acf>payL^uv) ,  v7ro/xovr/, 
vij/rjXo^  and  vi{/o<s,  ^ovevs  (Gosp.  and  1  Ej).  only  ar^pooTroKToVos), 
^XV  pei'son ;  finally  the  characteristic  self -designation  eyw 
.    *lwdvvr]<;. 


THE  LINGUISTIC   PECULIARITIES.  141 

22.  Linguistic  Character  of  Luke's  Writings. 

The  linguistic  character  of  the  writings  of  Luke  are  to  oe  Two  aspects 
considered  under  two  aspects,  which  yet  cannot  be  rigidly  dis- 
tinguished.    There  is  a  distinction  to  be  made,  that  is  to  say, 
between  the  parts  of  his  writings  where  he  composes  freely  and 
those  where  he  is  dependent  on  his  Hebrew  sources,  as  in  the 
evangelium  infantiae.     Between  these  extremes  lie  those  parts, 
where  a  mediate  dependence,  indeed,  on  such  sources,  but  at  the 
same  time  a  certain  literary  freedom  of  the  author  is  observa- 
ble, as  in  the  Gospel  for  the  most  part,  and  in  the  first  part  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     But  these  aside,  the  language  of  peculiar- 
Luke's    writing    shows   many    peculiarities:         a)    the   great ,,^^^^ 
multitude  of  arra^  kcyofxeva  (55  in  the  Gospel,  135  in  Acts)  ;  \ey6ixeva. 
from  these  we  select  the  following,  in  the    Gospel :  6.varoXrj  inj^^' 
of  the  Messiah,  aTTO(TToixarit,uv  tlvo.  Trept  .  .  .  ,  dTroi/^^x^'^^'  ^^"''" 
TOV  yCvt^rOaL,  avarrjpos,  dc^vTrvow,  PpwaLfXO^,  ^tavvKTepeveiv,  8ta- 
'TrpayixareviaOai,  StaacUiv,  evSexerat  it  is  becoming,  liaarpaTrreiv, 
iTnXeXrjdfJi^ov  Ivoymov  .  .  . ,   idcra?  dTroreAXetv,  iK/xds,  icrdyycXo?, 
Kard/Jacn?  tov   opov5,   KpamaXt],  Xalevrd?,  A^pos,    fieTeiopi^caeat, 
,ra/x7rX^^6t,  Trapipx^crOai  ivToXrjV,  TrXrjixfX-vpa,    -rrcvixpos,    TrpaKToyp, 
TTopctav  TTOLelaOaL,  (TdXo?,(nvLa^€LV,(nTOfi,iTpLov,  ar-qpL^eiv  to  TrpoVco- 
TTov   with  an   infinitive  with  toO  following,  avvoSLa,  <l)o(3r)Tp6v, 
Xdpa$,    xao-/^a>    xl^i^x^iv.       In    the    Acts:  dKpoarrjpLov,    dvai/^v^t?.  In  the  Acts. 
6.vev7raTeveiV,  6.VTo4>6aXixilv,  6.v(oT€pLK0^,   dTrcXey/xd?,   dTrepLTfir)TO<Sj 
^piaK€iv  IvwTTiov  .  ..,  dpxi^p(iTiKo<,,  ^cTCTov  comparativo  of  dyxt, 
dc^cXoTT^s  KapSias,  dx^vs,  a^  /Sdo-ets  the  legs,  /Spvx^tv  rov^  dSoVrag, 
yepovcTLa,  Stdcrrrjfxa,  hiaxXcvdCetv,  Se^toXd/Sos,   StoTTcr^?,  8(u8eKd(^v- 
Xov,  ^ixttvUlv  dTreiX^?,   lv€o^  dumb,  i^oXoOpeveaOaL,  to.  eVavayKes, 
iTraKpoaaOai,  eTTavXts,  CTrtKOvpta,   cvTropela-Qat,  Oeofxaxo^,  KaO-qp-epC- 
vo?,    KarayyeXev?,    KaraaocjiL^^aeai,    koltwv    cubiculo  praefectus, 
KTrjTOip,   XaKelv,  p-ayda,   fjioaxoTroielv,  fiaOriTpia,  veoK6pos,   okv^Iv, 
opo^eo-ta,    oxXoTTOuZv,    TtavoiKi,   TrapevoxXeTv,   TrapoLxnixevac  yeveat, 
TraparctVciv,  irapoTpvvuv,  Tre^^^'ctv,  TrcpiKpar^?,   Trept^,   Trpop-aTretXet- 
frOai,  Trpoo-eav,  TrpoaKX-qpovaOai,  TrpoaTretvo^,  TrpoawTToX-^irTr]';,  Trpco- 
Toardrr),,    ^vpd,    acp^LKuSiov,    aKXrjporpdxriXo,,     aKoA'nK6(3piOTO<;, 
CTTTCp/XoXdyOS,      (TVvSpOIJi-q,      dVvOpVTTTUV,      (TVvoixop^Zi^,     (TWtu/xoata, 


142         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

cr(f>vpov,     T€T/QaStov,     TpL€TLa,    <fiv\aKi^civ,    ^€tpaya)yo9,     ;)(/3ovoTpi- 

Fftvorite      Bilv.         B)   Favorite    expressions    and    favorite    turns ;    in  a 

expressions  j      .      j      \     .  >//i,        vv 

etc.  lexical  relation  :  aKoveauat  tts  ra  wra  rtvo?,  drevt'^civ  often  and 

in  various  constructions,  Stavotycci/  (ras  ypa^as,  rryi/  napSiav,  tov 

vovv  also  without  the  Accusative  followed  by  otl  exegetical, 

Acts  xvii.  3),  iTTLcrTara   is    used    regularly    in    the   Gospel  in 

addressing  Jesus,  instead  of  Kvpu  or  Ta/S/Si,  ^pwrav  Iva  or  ottws, 

rj   ix'^ixivT)    sc.    rjfxepay    iKavos    (tKavot)    considerable   (not    only 

dKoXov6ovvT€<;  tKttvot,  )(p6vo<s  iKai/os,  but  also   KXavOp-o^  Ik.  Acts 

XX.  37  and  ^cos  LKavov  Acts  xxii.  6),  AaXcii/  ck  rot?  aKoas  toG 

Xaov,  ojxoOvfxuSov  (often  in  Acts,  once  indeed  in  tlie  bad  sense : 

xix.  29),  oTTTacrta,  ovk  oXiyos  (-ot),  'irapa)(prjp.a  subito,  the  very 

frequent  Tropevea-Oat  (in  the  Gospel  50  times,  in  the  Acts  38 

times),  the  Hebraistic  Trtpevofxevos  for  "gradually,  more   and 

more"  (Gosp.  viii.  14  cf.  Gen.  xxvi.  13  ;  1  Sam.  xiv.  19),  the 

graphic  arpacfieLs  in  introducing  certain  addresses  of  Jesus  to 

Grammati-  his  companions.     In  a  grammatical  point  of  view  are  to  be 

cal  peculiar-  i    j   /i»  '>  ^  /  •  • 

ities.  observed  dvu  wv  for  olotl  (four  times,  not  used  elsewhere  ex- 

cept in  2  Thes.  ii.  10),  utto  causal,  e.g.  oltto  <f)6f3ov,  oltto  x«P^?) 
€ts  for  iv  (frequently,  most  clearly  in  Gosp.  iv.  44;  ix.  61  ; 
Acts  viii.  40),  the  converse  occurs  only  Gosp.  vii.  17;  €t  = 
num  before  a  direct  interrogation  (9  times)  ;  e^  avrCjv  for  rivet 
avToiv  (Gosp.  xi.  49  ;  xxi.  16 ;  Acts  ii.  30)  ;  ^v  (^aav)  with  the 
Present  Participle  pointing  out  continuous  action  f27  times  in 
the  Gospel,  and  19  times  in  Acts)  ;  more  frequently  than  in  the 
other  N.  T.  writings,  the  oratio  variata,  e.g.  a  transition  from 
the  oratio  directa  to  the  oratio  obliqua  Gosp.  v.  24  =  Matt, 
and  Mark  ix.  3,  or  from  the  oratio  obliqua  to  the  oratio  directa 
Acts  i.  4  ;  xvii.  3.  Transition  from  the  Inf.  c.  Accus.  to  on 
Gosp.  ix.  19  ;  from  ottws  c.  Subjunc.  into  the  Infin.  Acts  xxiii. 
23,  24 ;  the  Accus.  Partic.  instead  of  the  Genit.  Acts  xxvi.  2,  3  ; 
the  striking  attraction  Acts  x.  36  ;  finally  the  frequent  to  before 
whole  clauses,  even  before  a  dependent  interrogative  clause 
Acts  xxii.  30,  etc. 

23.    Linguistic  Character  cf  Mark. 
The  language  of  Mark  has  likewise  many  peculiariues.     "We 


THE  LINGUISTIC   PECULIARITIES.  143 

call  attention  a)  to  peculiar  expressions  :  aXcKTopo^ovia,  Peculiar 
avaXov  ytveaOai  (Matt.  fxiopaLvecrOaL) .  dva(rTevdt,uv,  d<fipL^€LV,  Xeyeiv 
iv  Ty  Oi8a)(rj,  ds  KaO*  cts  (cf.  John  viii.  1—11)  ;  iKOaix/Seta-OaL, 
i^diTLva,  i7n(TvvTpi)(€Lv,  cv6v<s  (very  frequent  var.  cv^ecos),  kcvtv- 
pioiv  (Matt.  iKarovTdp)(^o^),  Kco/xo7roAts,  fxeOopta,  /xoytXaXo?,  vov- 
ve)(w<;,  diro  fxaKpoOev,  Trpacnat  Ttpacnai  (a7r.  Aey.),  Trpoora^/Sarov, 
7rpo(TK€(lidkaLov,  TrpoaopixL^ecrOai,  Tnryixrj,  o-fJLvpvL^eiv,  aTreKovXdroip, 
(TTLpas:,  TtjXavyuy'i,  vTrepTrepi(T(jCi<;,  vttoXtjviov,  ^dXKLOv,  ondpcov 
(=  John),  et  al.  yS)  Grammatical  peculiarities  :  Mark  has  a  Grammat- 
predilection  for  the  historical  Present  and  employs  it  not  un-  arities. 
frequently  j^romiscuously  with  the  Imperf.  or  the  Aorist :  i.  21, 
30,  37,  40  f.,  43  f. ;  ii.  14,  15,  18  f. ;  iii.  3  f.,  13  f.,  20  f.  etc 
He  is  fond  of  graphic  participles,  as  Kvi/^as,  ifx^ptfjirjadixevosj 
Trepi/SXeij/dixevo?,  eTricrTpa^ets,  aTroo-rei/a^a?,  dvafSXeif/as,  lyaySAci^as, 
Ktt^tcra?,  etc. ;  also  of  appositional.  collocations,  such  as  etTroVros 
avTov,  evBvs  •  •  •  j  StaTravro?,  wkt6<s  koL  i^/xepa?,  tcroiOev  Ik  rrjq  Kap- 
SCa<s,  wSe  CTT*  iprj/XLas,  vvv  iv  tw  Kaipw  tovto),  a-^fxepov  ravTrj  rrj  vvktl, 
etc.  He  is  fond  of  expressing  the  emotions  of  astonishment, 
unwillingness,  and  the  like,  by  a  reduplication  of  the  questions 
and  the  exclamations  :  i.  24,  27  ;  ii.  7,  8  ;  iv.  39  ;  vi.  2,  50 ; 
viii.  17,  18,  et  al.  Compared  with  Matthew  (in  part  also  with 
Luke),  his  expression  has  often  a  certain  breadth,  see  iii.  27 
coll.  Matt.  xii.  19  ;  iii.  34,  35  coll.  Matt.  xii.  49,  50  ;  vi.  3  coll. 
Matt.  xiii.  25  ;  vi.  8,  9  coll.  Matt.  x.  9,  10 ;  vi.  15  coll.  Matt.  xiv. 
2  ;  55  coll.  Matt.  xiv.  34  ;  viii.  31  coll.  Matt.  xvi.  21  ;  36  coll. 
Matt.  xvi.  26;  ix.  18  coll.  JVIatt.  xvii.  15,  et  al.  Other  pecu-  other  pecu- 
liarities, as  that  he  often  cites  certain  names  and  formulae  in 
the  original  language,  that  he  is  fond  of  more  accurate  temporal 
and  local  designations,  and  often  introduces  special  features, 
which  the  other  Evangelists  do  not  have,  —  belong  less  to  the 
linguistic  character  than  to  the  historical  representation. 

24.    Linguistic  Character  of  Matthew, 

Matthew  has  fewer   peculiarities.      We  mention  the  d-n-a^  Pecniiari- 
Xeyo/ACi/a :   dO<jL>o<;  diro  .  .  .,   aKfxrjv  (Interj.),  (SarToXoyeiv,   a'^'ay- ativeJy  few. 
^ecr^at,  6  Belva,  StcTTa^etv  to  doubt,  StvXi^eLV,  iyipcTLs,  iTnya/xjSpiv- 
etv,   €7rtcrr^/xo9   insignis    (in  malam   partem),  evBui,    €vvov)(fCeLv, 


144 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 


KapSia  TTJq  y?}?,  Kwvojij/y  olKeTeta  (Luke  OepaireLo),  TraytSet'etv  iv 
Xoyio,  7rpo(f)0dvo),  (TTvyvdloi  of  the  nature  of  heaven.  To  the 
predominating  linguistic  usage  of  Matthew  belongs  also  the 
pleonastic  dvOp<D7ro^,  e.g.  dv6p.  jSaaLXev^;,  dvOp.  olKoSecnroTrj'S ; 
ySacrtXeia  twv  ovpavwv  (rarely  yS.  tov  Oeov),  the  formulae  for 
citations  i—XepioOr]  to  prjdev  and  Iva  {o~oi<i)  7rXr]pu)0y  ;  kut  oj/ap, 
Kova-ToSia  (5  times,  not  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament),  o-v/x- 
/BovXlov  Xap-l^dvcLV  (Mark  av/j./3.  ttokIv)  ,  crvvapat  Xoyov,  especially 
the  frequent  rore  (in  Matthew  91  times,  in  Mark  only  6  times, 
and  in  the  writings  of  Luke  14  times),  (f)pd^uv  to  expound,  to 
exj^lain,  and  the  like. 


Antiquated 
notions. 


Causes  of 
error. 
Doj]^matic 
preposses- 
sion. 
3Iatt.  vii. 
16-20. 


M.    Helps  to  the  Explanation, 

a)  Internal  Helps. 

a)    The    Connection. 

25.   Importance  of  attending  to  the  Connection* 

The  notion  that  the  Scriptures  are  a  collection  of  individual 
oracular  deliverances  which  retain  their  sense  without  reference 
to  their  connection,  or  that  they  are  an  arsenal  of  "  sedes  doc- 
trinae,"  may  be  regarded  as  antiquated,  although  in  certain 
circles,  and  for  edificatory  purposes,  it  may  still  often  enough  be 
applied.  Without  condemning  unconditionally  the  latter  use, 
it  must  yet  be  said,  that  it  nerely  ministers  to  a  subjective  need, 
and  can  lay  claim  to  no  sort  of  ecclesiastical  authority.  A  use 
of  Scripture  which  pretends  to  a  more  general  value  must  be 
based  upon  a  consideration  of  the  connection.  The  neglect  of 
this  essential  help  to  the  explanation  has  given  rise  to  unnum- 
bered incorrect  explanations.  The  causes,  however,  may  be 
various.  a)  One  of  the  most  fruitful  causes  of  false  exjjlan- 
Sitions  is  dogmatic  prepossession.  See  Matt.  vii.  lG-20.  This 
passage  has  been  thus  understood  by  Luther  and  other  old 
Protestant  exegetes  in  an  anti-Catholic  interest :  The  tree 
must  first  be  good,  before  it  can  bring  forth  good  fruit,  i.e.  man 
must  through  faith  be  regenerated  before  he  can  perform  good 
works.     But  this  contradicts  the  connection  and  the  clear  in- 


THE   CONNECTION.  145 

tention  of  the  passage.  Immediately  before  Jesus  has  warned 
his  disciples  against  false  prophets,  who  appear  outwardly  like 
innocent  and  pious  sheep,  but  inwardly  are  ravening  wolves. 
He  now  gives  them  the  criterion  by  which  they  may  distinguish 
the  false  and  the  good  teachers  from  each  other,  viz.  their  fruits, 
i.e.  goods  works,  conduct  corresponding  to  the  words  of  Jesus. 
[Bengel ;  Porro  fructus  sunt  gnorismata  veritatis  aut  falsitatis 
prophetae,  adeoque  etiam  doctrinae  a  propheta  propinatae.  Igitur 
doctrina  non  est  fructus,  ex  quo  propheta  cognoscitur :  sed  est 
forma,  quae  ei  dat  esse  veri  falsive  prophetae].  Here,  there- 
fore, nothing,  at  all  is  said  as  to  what  is  requisite  in  order  that 
men  may  be  enabled  to  do  good  works,  but  as  to  the  means  hy 
which  false  and  genuine  teachers  may  be  distinguished,  viz.  good 
works  ;  hence  an  inference  from  the  external  to  the  internal. 
This  inference  is  now  vs.  17,  18  justified,  the  argument  being 
reversed,  and  it  being  shown  that  a  corruj^t  tree  necessarily  brings 
forth  corrupt  fruit,  and  a  good  tree,  good  fruit.  That  this  is  the 
true  sense  and  connection  is  clear  from  vs.  20,  which  sums  up  and 
confirms  what  has  preceded.  In  the  following  verses  (21-23) 
the  same  criterion  is  given  for  the  confessors  of  Jesus,  as  for 
the  prophets  and  teachers  :  Not  fine  words,  not  single  works  of 
power  and  great  results,  furnish  the  means  of  distinguishing 
genuine  and  spurious  disciples,  of  Christ,  but  the  doing  of  the 
will  of  the  Heavenly  Father.  To  this  thought  is  joined  now 
the  simile  vs.  24-27,  as  already  the  language  (see  vs.  24  and 
26),  and  not  less  the  connection,  shows.  It  could,  therefore, 
again,  only  be  dogmatic  prepossession  that  could  underlay  the 
simile  of  the  house  built  upon  the  sand  and  that  built  on  a  rock, 
with  another  sense  ;  as  v/hen  it  is  attempted,  namely,  to  find 
therein  the  doctrine,  that  only  the  house  which  is  built  upon 
the  rock  of  Christ  is  secure,  i.e.  that  only  he  who  grounds  his 
faith  (otherwise,  his  hope  of  happiness),  upon  nothing  else  than 
Christ,  has  found  a  firm  ground  of  his  faith  and  life.  A  glance 
at  the  connection  and  the  intention  of  these  words  shows  the 
conception  to  be  an  incorrect  one,  since  in  vs.  24  (coll.  2G)  Jesus 
says  expressly :  Whosoever  heareth  these  words  of  mine  (that 

13 


146  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

immediately  precede),  and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  him  to  a  wise 
man,  etc.  This  shows  as  clear  as  day  that  not  the  object  on 
which  the  house  is  built  is  the  ground  of  comparison,  but  the 
subject,  or  the  performance  or  non-performance  of  the  words  of 
Christ.  He  who  merely  hears  the  words  of  Christ  and  depends 
on  the  fact  that  he  has  heard  them,  builds  his  house  on  the 
sand,  etc.  On  the  false  application  of  the  parallel  passage, 
Eom.  xiv.  1  Pet.  ii.  4,  see  below.  Cf.  further,  Rom.  xiv.  23.  This  pas- 
sage has  been  thus  understood  by  all  old  Protestant  theolo- 
gians :  Whatever  does  not  spring  from  a  heart-renewing  faith 
in  Christ  is  far  from  being  a  good  work,  is  rather  sin.  But  the 
connection  shows  plainly  the  groundlessness  of  this  explana- 
tion. The  Apostle  insists  throughout  this  whole  chapter,  that 
the  anxious  ones,  who  still  make  the  enjoying  of  certain  meats 
a  matter  of  conscience,  shall  not  judge  others  ;  and  those 
that  have  risen  above  such  scruples  are  not  to  despise  the 
anxious  ones,  and  still  less  to  occasion  them  to  do  anything 
against  their  conscience,  since  "  he  that  doubts  whethei*  an 
action  is  allowable,  and  yet  does  it,  commits  sin."  The  TrtVris 
of  which  mention  is  here  made  as  the  condition  of  the  unsin- 
fulness  of  an  action  is,  therefore,  not  beatifying  faith  in  Christ, 
but  the  special  conviction  of  the  allowableness  of  a  particular 

Matt.  xvi.    action.     See  further,  Matt.  xvi.  17-19.      This  passage,  as  is 
17-19.  ,  '  ^  ^  r        o  ?      ^ 

well-known,  is  the  locus  classicus  on  which  from  the  beginning 
the  papacy  has  based  its  justification,  inasmuch,as  Peter  is  here 
declared  by  Christ  to  be  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  the  foun- 
dation of  the  church,  and  judicial  power  in  the  church  is  deliv- 
ered to  him  ;  and  just  as  the  primacy  and  the  ecclesiastical 
power  of  the  keys  were  delivered  to  Peter,  so  this  must  also 
hold  true  of  his  successors,  the  bishops  of  Rome.  With  justice 
have  the  Protestants,  on  the  other  hand,  set  forth  the  historical 
groundlessness  of  the  assumption  that  Peter  established  the 
church  in  Rome,  or  was  the  first  bishop  thereof ;  with  justice 
also  it  has  been  observed,  that  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing^, 
which  Christ  here  confers  upon  Peter,  was  bestowed  upon  all 
the  Apostles  (xviii.  18).     But  the  old  Protestant  exegetes  did 


THE   CONNECTION.  147 

not  stop  here,  but  sought  in  a  dogmatico-polemic  interest  to 
explain  away  the  obvious  sense  of  the  words,  and  to  underlay 
this  with  the  thought,  that  Christ  founded  his  church  not  on 
the  person  of  Peter,  but  only  on  his  faith  ;  as  if  in  Jesus's 
words  Peter's  person  and  faith  would  be  discriminated.  But 
Luke  vii.  47  has  remained  in  dispute  to  the  present  day.  While  Lukevii.47. 
in  the  Catholic-Protestant  polemics  the  Catholics  laid  weight 
upon  it  in  order  to  prove  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  not  based 
upon  faith  alone,  but  on  love,  the  Protestants  strove  to  deprive 
the  Catholic  theology  of  this  proof-text,  by  trying  to  show  from 
vs.  50,  that  what  in  the  yvi/-^  aiJ.apTwXos  was  properly  faith  is  in 
vs.  47  called  by  Jesus  "love"  (Melanchthon),  or  by. trying  to 
show  from  the  parable  of  the  two  debtors  (vs.  41,  42),  that  love 
is  designated  not  as  the  cause,  but  as  the  proof  (a  posterori), 
that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  has  been  received,  and  therefore 
on  {-qydTnja-e  ttoXv)  points  out  the  criterion  (so  CalvinJ.  Here 
we  must  discriminate,  indeed,  between  the  dogmatic  and  the 
exegetical  ground  of  the  explanation,  and  we  must  carefully 
guard  against  the  former.  The  exegetical  argument  is,  on  the 
contrary,  not  without  weight,  especially  in  the  latter  aspect. 
Yet  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  vs.  44-46,  hence  imme- 
diately preceding  the  disputed  passage,  love  is  evidently  spoken 
of,  and  that,  too,  the  lesser  love  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  greater 
love  of  the  yvvrj  d/xaprtoXds.  There  occurs,  therefore,  undoubt- 
edly from  vs.  41  to  47,  a  turning  of  the  argument.  After  the 
Pharisee  had  designated  the  anointing  woman,  simply  accord- 
ing to  her  earlier  known  mode  of  life,  as  a  "  sinner,"  Jesus 
takes,  on  the  contrary,  as  a  starting-point,  the  fact  of  her  great 
love,  and  shows  first  from  the  parable  of  the  two  debtors,  that 
the  greater  debtor  has  to  be  thankful  for  a  greater  remission  of 
debt,  and  therefore  loves  the  master  more  than  the  smaller 
debtor.  The  application  of  the  parable  to  him.self  and  the 
woman,  viz.  that  the  greater  love  of  the  latter  is  a  proof  of 
the  greater  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  that  just  for  this  reason 
she  is  to  be  regarded  as  no  longer  a  sinner,  but  as  one 
who  has  experienced  a  great   forgiveness,  he   leaves   to   the 


148  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 

Pharisee,  contenting  himself  with  convincing  the  latter  of  the 
smallness  of  his  love,  and  of  the  greatness  of  that  of  the  woman; 
whence  the  conclusion  may  be  easily  drawn,  that  the  Pharisee 
has  been  forgiven  of  little  —  the  woman  of  much.  From  this 
connection  then  is  the  peculiar  turn  in  vs.  47  also  to  be  ex- 
plained :  ov  x^P'^  —  sc.  for  the  sake  of  this  great  proof  of  her 
love  —  a<l>€ix)VTai  at  ajxapriaL  avrq^i  ai  TroAAat,  ort  rjyaTrrjaeu 
TToXv  '  w  Si  oXiyov  d^ierat,  oXlyov  dyaTra,  i.e.  her  love,  which 
presupposes  the  great  forgiveness,  is  the  proof  of  this  forgive- 
ness ;  but  to  whom  little  has  been  forgiven  (because  in  his  own 
opinion  there  was  little  to  be  forgiven)  he  also  loves  little. 
Opposing  Over  against  the  rejection  of  all  dogmatic  presupposition  the 
following  is  now  usually  maintained  :  the  Scriptures  are  to  be 

The  "  ana-  explained  according  to  the  analogia  fidei ;  but  to  the  analogia 
logia  fidei."        ^ .  *  ,  ^  .  .       .  f 

fidei  belongs  before  everything  else  the  doctrine  of  justification 

through  faith  ;  therefore  Scripture  is  to  be  ex2:)lained  accord- 
ing to  this,  and  this  doctrine  is  everywhere  to  be  sought  and 
found.  But  the  "  analogia  fidei  "  is  either  brought  to  Scripture 
from  without^  and  hence  exegetically  unjustifiable,  or  else  it  is 
the  quintessence  of  its  contents  drawn  from  Scripture  itself 
and  then  the  principle  is  perfectly  correct,  on  the  presupposi- 
tion, namely,  that  it  has  really  flowed  from  correct  exegesis, 
and  is  the  true  quintessence.  But  this  presupposition  is  unten- 
able for  the  reason  that  such  a  quintessence  can  only  be  the 
highest  result  of  exegesis,  and  is,  therefore,  to  be  tested  always 
anew  by  this  latter.  It  holds  to  reason,  therefore,  that  exege- 
sis must  be  free  from  dogmatic  presupposition^  and  must  in 
each  particular  case  be  guided  by  the  connection. 

26.  Incorrect  Application  of  Parallels. 
Just  as  frequently  is  the  misunderstanding  of  a  passage 
occasioned  by  the  incorrect  appli'cation  of  a  parallel  passage. 
It  is  known,  what  an  important  exegctical  help  parallel  pas- 
sages are  ;  but  we  must  see  to  it  that  they  are  not  only  appar- 
ently but  truly  i)arallel,  and  that  they  are  correctly  applied. 
Occasion  of  But  in  this  matter  unnumbered  failures  have  been  made  from 
the  exegete's  confining  himself  merely  to  the  collocation  of  the 


THE  CONNECTION.  149 

words  or  else  to  the  external  similarity,  and  disregarding  the 
connection.     We  have  already  spoken  of  the  false  explanation 
of  Matt.  vii.  24-27,  where  on  the  basis  of  1  Cor.  iii.  11, 12,  and 
1  Pet.  ii.  4  the  Trerpa  has  been  referred  to  Christ.     Cf.  further, 
Matt.  V.  25,  26.     This  passage  appears  to  correspond  entirely  Matt.r.  25> 
with  Luke  xii.  58,  59.     But  examine  the  connection  of  the  Luke  xS. 
two  passages :  In  Matthew,  as  is  clear  from  v.  23,  24,  placa-     '    ' 
bility  is  spoken  of.     After  it  has  been  said  that  it  is  only  after 
one  has  become  reconciled  with  his  brother  that  he  can  offer  to 
God  an  acceptable  sacrifice  and  find  a  reconciled  God,  it  is  now 
said  that  one  should  be  reconciled  with  his   adversary  while 
they  are  together  on  the  way  to  the  judge,  lest  he  find  a  judge 
not  deciding  according  to  rigorous  justice.     But  if  from  this 
undoubted  sense  one  would  draw  a  conclusion  with  reference 
to  the  passage  in  Luke,  and  explain  the  latter  by  the  former,  he 
would  scarcely  hit  upon  the  true  meaning.     In  Luke  xii.  58,  59 
the  signs  of  the  times,  namely,  have  been  spoken  of  immediately 
before,  for  the   misunderstanding  of  which  Jesus  chides  his 
hearers;  since  now  the  exhortation  to  reconciliation  is  alto- 
gether incongruous,  but  the  dvri'SiKos  with  whom  one  is  to  seek 
reconciliation  would  be  just  such  a  sign  of  the  time,  but  a  sign 
of  the  time  that  stands  in  antagonism  over  against  the  contem- 
porary generation,  and  with  which  the  race  must  in  time  be 
reconciled,  under  peril  of  salvation.     What  else  can  be  meant 
by  this  sign  of  the  time,  than  the  great  cn^/xctov  Chi-ist  ?     The 
passage  in  Luke  can,  therefore,  have  no  other  meaning  than, 
this  generation,  for  which  Christ    is    a  a-rjfjieLov  avTiXeyofxevoVy 
should  seek  to  be  reconciled  with  him  while  it  is  still  with 
him  on  the  way  to  the  judge  (to  eternity),  because  this  sign, 
which  is  mistaken  for  the  avTiStKo?,  will  hereafter  pronounce  an 
inexorable  judgment.     See  furtlier.  Matt.  vi.  22,  23  coll.  Luke  Matt,  vi.22, 
xi.  34-36.     The  expression  o^i9aX/x6?  7rovr]p6<;  and  dirXovq  is  on  xi.  31-^. 
both  sides  the  same.     With  Matthew  the   "  single"  and  the 
"  knavish  eye,"  mean  respectively  purity  and  impurity  in  rela- 
tion to  the"  goods  for  which  man  strives.     It  has  just  been  said, 
namely,  that  we  should  not  lay  up  treasures  on  earth,  which 
13* 


150  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

may  be  corrupted  by  moth  and  rust,  and  which  may  excite  the 
desire  of  thieves ;  we  should  rather  strive  after  heavenly 
treasures  that  are  not  subject  to  such  dangers.  Now  follows 
the  expression  with  reference  to  the  single  and  the  knavish  eye, 
which  is  still  further  confirmed  by  v.  24 :  You  cannot  serve 
God  and  Mammon.  The  6cf>0aXfjio^  irovqpo^  is,  therefore,  the 
same  eye,  which  —  assuming  the  role  of  striving  after  heavenly 
treasures  —  yet  (lustfully  or  enviously)  squints  at  earthly 
treasures,  and  in  this  manner  would  serve  both  God  and  Mam- 
mon. The  connection  is  different  in  Luke  xi.  34  f.  Here  the 
sign-seeking  generation  is  denounced,  and  the  Xinevites  who- 
were  converted  under  the  preaching  of  Jonas  are  held  ujd  to  it 
as  a  reproach.  "But  a  greater  than  Jonas  is  here " ;  how 
much  more  ground,  therefore,  has  this  generation  to  be  con- 
verted than  had  the  Ninevites  !  "  No  man  puts  a  candle  under 
a  bushel,  but  on  a  candlestick  " ;  now  follows  the  saying,  "  the 
light  of  the  body  is  the  eye,"  etc.  According  to  this  connection, 
therefore,  the  Xvxvo^-,  vs.  33,  can  only  refer  to  Christ  as  the 
light  of  the  world,  and  the  "  eye,"  can  only  designate  apprecia- 
tion for  Christ,  the  eye  of  faith,  which  may  be  either  clear  or 
darkened.  If,  therefore,  in  the  passage  in  Matthew  "  the 
whole  body,"  which  may  be  either  "  light  or  dark,"  designates 
the  clearness  or  the  darkness  of  the  moral  conscience,  in  Luke 
the  religious  conscience  must  be  pointed  out,  which  in  relation 
to  Christ,  the  light  of  the  world,  may  be  either  clear  or  dark. 
Matt.  X.  24   Cf.  further.  Matt.  x.  24  with  Luke  vi.  40,  and  John  xiii.  16. 

coll    J^ukc 

vi  ioand  When  it  is  said  in  Matthew :  "the  discij^le  is  not  above  his 
l(i.  "'  master,"  it  is  made  clear  from  what  precedes,  where  the  dis- 
ciples have  been  reminded  of  the  persecutions  that  await  them, 
that  Jesus  means  to  say,  the  discij^le  has  no  better  fate  to 
expect  than  his  master.  But  this  expression  in  Luke  has  a 
different  connection  of  thought ;  immediately  before,  namely, 
stand  the  words  :  Can,  indeed,  one  blind  man  be  a  leader  of 
another  ?  When,  now,  the  expression,  "  the  disciple  is  not 
above  his  teacher  "  follows,  it  can  here  mean  nothing  else  than, 
**  If  the  teacher  is  blind,  so  much  the  more  must  his  disciple  be 


THE   CONNECTION.  151 

blind ;  or,  in  order  that  he  may  not  fall  with  him  into  the  pit, 
he  must  be  above  the  teacher,"  which  is  incongruous.  This  ex- 
pression has  still  another  connection  and  sense  in  John  xiii.  16: 
the  foot-washing  has  just  preceded  ;  Jesus  instructs  his  disciples 
now  with  reference  to  the  meaning  of  this  act,  and  says :  "  I 
have  given  you  an  example  in  order  that  you  may  do  unto  each 
other  as  I  have  done  unto  you."  The  words  following,  "  the 
disciple  is  not  above  his  master,"  mean,  accordiugly.  If  /your 
Lord  and  Master  have  not  held  it  beneath  my  dignity  to  per- 
form this  menial  service  for  you,  so  ought  you,  my  disciples, 
who  do  not  stand  above  me,  to  hesitate  so  much  the  less  to  do 
such  service  for  one  another. 

It  may  now  be  said,  in  opposition  to  this  rule  of  the  accurate 
consideration  of  the  connection,  and  of  the  various  meanings  of 
similar  expressions  in  the  Gospels:  either  we  must  suppose 
that  Christ  used  the  same  expression  more  than  once,  and  with 
such  different  meanings,  which  is  improbable,  or  else  that  one 
Evangelist  has  brought  the  expression  into  an  improper  con- 
nection, and  it  is  therefore  useless  to -attach  so  much  impor- 
tance to  the  present  connection.  This  method  has  been  applied 
even  by  approved  exegetes,  like  De  Wette  and  Bleek,  esj^ecially 
with  regard  to  Luke  xi.  33,  34.  It  can  now,  indeed,  scarcely 
be  unconditionally  denied,  eith<  r  that  Christ  made  use  of  an 
expression  more  than  once  (see,  e.g.  Matt.  x.  39  ;  xvi.  25, 
et  al.),  or  that  an  Evangelist  has  here  and  there  brought  an  ex- 
pression into  an  unhistorical  connection  ;  but  in  no  case  ought 
the  latter  to  be  assumed  lightly  and  without  good  ground. 
And  if  such  a  view  must  be  accepted,  the  ascertaining  of  this  The  exe- 

T        1        1  1         p     1  •  •  PI       gete's  and 

Circumstance  is  immediately  the  work  oi  the  critic,  not  oi  the  the  critic'3 

rri,        ,  ,  1-1  •  •  ...  work  dis- 

exegete.      ine  latter  has  to  explain  the  writing  as  it  is  ;  since  crimiaated. 
it  is  one  question  how  the  author  himself  thought  with  refer- 
ence to  the  connection;  another,  whether  Jesus /limself  re-ally 
used  the  given  expression  in  this  connection. 

27.   Misleading   Passages. 

In  general  it  occurs  that  a  passage,  according  to  the  mere 
language^  seems  to  have  a  sense  different  from  what  it  really 


152         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 
iCor.  Hi.  16,  Aas.     See  e.cf.  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17.     Here  Christians   are  called 

IT.andlCor       ,     ^     „         f  .        .       \,    ^  .  ,  „      .  ^     ,. 

vi.l9.  vao<;  Veov  and  a  warning  is  added  against  the  pollution  of  this 

temple.  Because  now  in  1  Cor.  vi.  19,  where  the  bodies  of 
believers  are  called  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  unchastity  is 
spoken  of,  and  the  expression  <^^ctp€iv  rov  vaov  tov  Ocov  seems 
very  suitable  to  sexual  transgressions,  hence  it  has  been  believed 
that  the  first  passage  must  also  have  this  sense.  But  examine 
the  connection.  Immediately  before,  the  Apostle  has  spoken  of 
the  various  kinds  of  service  in  the  structure  of  the  Christian 
church,  which  discourse  has  reference  to  the  Corinthian  division 
into  parties.  It  is  intimated  that  there  ^re  such  teachers  as 
seek  to  build  the  church  of  bad,  destructible  material.  When, 
DOW,  immediately  thereupon  the  Corinthian  Christians  are 
denominated  a  temple  of  God,  this  expression  can  designate 
nothing  else  than  the  Christian  church,  and  the  expression 
<f>OeLp€Lv  TOV  vaov  TOV  6eov  nothing  else  than  the  corruption  of 
James  i.  3  the  church  through  bad  doctrines.  Cf.  besides,  James  i.  3  with 
i.  7.  *  1  Pet.  i.  7.  In  both  places  the  word  Sokl/jllov  occurs,  and 
apparently  in  very  similar  connections,  and  it  might  therefore 
be  supposed  that  both  passages  have  the  same  meaning,  since  in 
both  the  proving  of  believers  is  spoken  of.  But  if  we  look  at 
the  connection  more  carefully,  we  shall  find  yet  a  difference  of 
meaning.  In  James  i.  3  temptations  are  spoken  of  by  which 
the  readers,  far  from  having  been  overcome,  rather  have  cause 
for  rejoicing,  because  temptations  bring  about  the  wholesome 
vTToixovq.  When  it  is  said,  therefore,  to  SoKifjuov  vfjLwv  KUTCfy- 
•ya^cTtti  vTrofiov-Qv,  SoKifxiov  must  here  designate  a  mfeans  of  con- 
firmation, a  touch-stone  (see  also  Dionys.  Hal.  Ehet.  11).  But 
if  we  attend  more  carefully  to  the  sense  and  connection  of 
1  Pet.  i.  7,  we  shall  see  that  there  God  is  thanked  for  the  sal- 
vation which  has  befallen  the  readers,  which  in  the  last  time 
is  to  come  to  full  revelation.  The  words  that  now  follow,  iv 
to  dyaXA-tao-^c,  oXt'yov  apri  €t  Siov  Xv7rrj9ivTi<;  ev  7roiKLXoL<;  Treipacr- 

/AOtS,     LVa    TO    SoKllXLOV    VfJLiOV    TtJS    TTtCrTCWS     TToXvTLjXOT^poV      -^pvatOV 

.  .  .  ivpeOfj,    iv   aiToKakvxpii   'Irjcrov   Xptcrrot',   show    cleaily   tl  at 
SoKLp,Lov  designates  here  not  what  confirms,  but  the  confirmation. 


THE   CONNECTION.  153 

Substantives  in  -lov  have  in  general  now  an  active,  now  a  pas- 
sive signification,  e.g.  oj/^di/toi/  vegetables,  but  also  the  place 
where  vegetables  are  sold,  alTrokiov  herd  of  goats,  but  also 
goat-pasture.  (See  Sokiixlov  in  Herodian.  II.  10,  12).  See 
also  John  v.  25  ;  this  passage  seems  to  speak  of  the  eschato-  John  v.  25. 
logical  awakening  from  death,  a  sense  which  seems  also  to  be 
confirmed  through  vs.  28,  29,  where  this  meaning  is  entirely 
beyond  doubt.  But  observe  the  connection  of  the  former 
passage.  It  is  said,  immediately  before,  that  he  who  attends 
faithfully  to  the  word  of  Jesus,  and  believes  in  Him  who  sent 
him,  does  not  come  into  judgment,  but  has  eternal  life.  Now  it 
appears  from  the  Johannean  meaning  of  the  word  Kptorts  (iii. 
19  ,  V.  22  ;  xii.  31  ;  xvi.  8,  11),  as  well  as  from  that  of  C^rj 
aicoj/toq  (iii.  3G  ;  vi.  54  ;  x.  28  ;  xii.  50  ;  xvii.  3),  that  not  merely 
something  in  the  world  to  come,  but  already  something  in  this 
world,  is  designated  thereby.  That  this  is  applicable  to  our 
passage  also  is  clear  from  the  preceding  words,  tpx^rai  wpa 
Kal  vvv  i(TTLv.  "When  now  it  is  said,  "  The  hour  cometh  .  .  . 
in  which  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  live,"  something  to  occur  already  in  this  present  life 
must  also  be  meant,  and  by  the  vc/cpots  the  spiritually  dead 
must  be  understood,  as  in  Luke  ix.  60  ;  xv.  24,  32  ;  Eph.  ii. 
1,  5.  Therefore,  the  spiritual  quickening  through  the  awak- 
ening voice  of  the  Son  of  God  is  meant.  But  is  not  vs. 
28,  29  against  this  ?  No,  but  the  contrary  ;  since  what  is 
here  spoken  of  the  corporeal  awakening  from  death,  is  intro- 
duced by  the  fxr]  ^av/u-a^erc  tovto,  referring  back  to  the  earlier, 
which  would  be  altogether  nugatory,  if  vs.  25  had  said  the  same 
thing  as  vs.  28,  29.  Rather  the  /xr)  ^av^a^cre  tovto  introduces 
a  confirmation  by  means  of  a  still  greater.  The  thought  is 
this  :  Marvel  not  that  I  ascribe  to  myself  such  a  power  of  spir- 
itual restoration  to  life,  since  that  awakening  at  the  last  day 
and  the  final  judgment  will  also  be  consummated  by  the  Son  of 
'God.  See  further,  James  i.  17.  The  sense  seems  to  be  this  :  James  i.  17. 
All  good  gifts  come  from  above,  and  we  are,  therefore,  to 
receive  them  thankfully  from  God.    But  this  sense  corresponds 


154         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

by  no  means  with  the  connection.  Immediately  before  goes 
the  warning  against  the  deterministic  view,  which  was  wont  to 
ascribe  the  yielding  to  opposition  and  temptations,  that  arise 
from  within,  to  God;  it  is  rather  our  own  lust  that  arises  in 
the  heart  and  brings  forth  sin  and  its  consequence,  death. 
And  now,  to  prove  that  the  matter  in  hand  is  a  warning  against 
a  ruinous  error,  and  not  an  encouragement  to  thankfulness,  the 
sentence  :  iraaa  Socns  dyaOrj  ...  is  introduced  by  a  [xt]  TrXavaaOe. 
Consequently,  this  also  must  have  reference  to  that  error,  and 
must  contain  the  opposite  truth  :  -'Only  a  good  gift  (nothing 
but  a  good  gift)  comes  from  above,"  etc.  Cf.  Tzacrav  xo-pav 
Tjyrjaaa-Oe  VS.    2,   which    Luther  already    translated    correctly, 

Matt.  vii.  8.  "  esteem  it  an  idle  joy  .  .  . ."  See  also  Matt.  vii.  8,  where 
Tras  6  ahCiv  Xafx^dveL  etc.  is  more  correctly  rendered  "  only  he 
who  prays  receives."  than  "  every  one  who  prays  receives." 
Only  with  the  help  of  the  connection  can,  finally,  the  passage 

Gal.  iii.  19,  Gal.  iii.  19,  20,  celebrated  as  a  crux  interpretum,  be  explained. 
The  connection  with  what  precedes  is  as  follows :  Paul  means 
to  show,  in  general,  that  salvation  comes  from  the  promise, 
hence  from  grace,  and  not  from  the  law.  Then  the  objection 
presses  upon  him,  to  what  end  then  was  the  law,  which  is  a 
divine  ordinance,  given  ?  This  leads  him  to  the  relation  of  the 
law  to  the  divine  promise  and  grace,  viz. :  1)  The  law  is  an 
institution  rendered  necessary  on  account  of  transgression,  but 
still  temporary  (vs.  19)  ;  2)  The  law  was  promulgated  through 
mediators  (sc.  angels  vs.  19),  wherein  evidently  not  a  glorifica- 
tion of  the  law,  but  its  inferiority/  is  designed  to  be  exj)ressed  ; 
since  the  angels  are  here  mentioned  not  as  a  revelation  of  God 
in  opposition  to  non-revelation,  but  as  mediated  revelation  in 
opposition  to  the  immediilte.  Now  follow  the  disputed  words 
6  8c  fxiaLTrjs  evos  ovk  Icttlv,  6  Sc  ^€09  cts  iaxLv.  These  words 
mark  evidently  no  progress  in  the  thought,  but  contain  merely 
an  elucidation  of  the  words  ...  cV  x^tp't  /xeo-tVov.  But  wherein 
does  this  elucidation  consist?  Here  the  circumstance  that 
vs.  20  contains  an  antithetical  parallelism  comes  to  our  aid.  The 
antithesis  rests  upon  ci^os  ovk  co-rtv  and  eU  icmv,  but  also  upon 


THE   CONNECTION.  155 

fjL€crLTr]<;  and  ^cos.  The  /xecrLrr]?  presupposes  not  only  one,  but 
two  2)cr3ons,  between  whom  he  is  to  mediate.  The  expression 
here  is  quite  a  general  one,  and  designates  neither  the  angels 
specially  nor  Moses  specially.  Paul  means  to  say :  The  in- 
feriority of  the  legal  dispensation  to  the  dispensation  of  grace 
is  clear  from  the  fact  that  the  former  rests  on  a  mediate,  but 
the  latter  on  an  immediate,  revelation;  that,  therefore,  presup- 
poses merely  a  mediate,  but  this  an  immediate,  relation  betweeli 
God  and  man. 

28.    Doubtful    Passages. 
But  we  may  be  in  doubt,  ivhefher  there  is  any  connection  or 
not.     In  the  Gospels  at  least,  this  is  not  seldom  the  case  ;  and 
it  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  there  are  cases  where  no  connection 
can  be  found,  and  where  any  endeavor  to  establish  a  connection 
would  be  unexegetical  trifling.     Cf.  Luke  xvi.  1,  where  every  Luke  xvi.  L 
effort  to  find  an  internal  connection  between  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  and  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  must  be 
thwarted.     See  likewise  vs.  18,  where  we  certainly  have  before 
us  an  apothegm  wrested  from  its  connection  ;  cf.  Matt.  v.  32, 
where  it  stands  in  its  natural  connection.     Just  as  little  are  we 
to  think  of  a  logical  connection  of  Luke  vi.  39  with  the  fore-  Luke  vi.  39. 
going,  while  this  expression  in  Matt.  xv.  14  stands  precisely  in 
its  right  place.     Now  and  then  an  expression,  figure,  and  the 
like  seems  to  be  joined  merely  according  to  the  association  of 
ideas,  as  Matt.  xiii.  24  f.,  the  parable  of  the  Tares  to  the  para-  Matt.  xiii. 
ble  of  the  Sower.     Perhai^s,.  also,  the  word  StaaKopTTL^o}  (Luke  Luke  xv.  13 
XV.  13    and  xvi.  1)   gave  occasion  to  join  the  parable  of  the  ^^^  ^^^"  ■^" 
Prodigal  Son  and  the  -parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  so  fun- 
damentally different,  to  each  other.     P>ut  often   we   may  be 
really  in  doubt  whether  there  is  a  connection.     It  appears  fre- 
quently, from  a  superficial  glance,  as  if  there  "were  none,  and 
yet  a  more  profound  examination  establishes  the  fact  that  there 
is  a  connection.     See,  e.g.  Luke  xvi.  13  :  '"  No  man  can  serve  Lukexvi.13 
two  masters,"  etc.     These  words  are  regarded  by  some  exe- 
getes  as  separated  from  the  foregoing,  while  others  recognize  a 
connection.     Without  entering  into  an  explanation  of  the  para- 


156  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETEH. 

ble  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  we  may  make  liere  only  the  follow- 
ing observations.  To  the  parable  of  the  Steward  from  vs.  8  to 
vs.  12,  inclusive,  three  sentences  are  appended,  of  which  the 
first  is  very  intimately  connected  with  the  figure,  while  in  the 
following  there  is  a  progress  from  the  special  to  the  general,  so 
that  1)  To  the  saying,  "the  children  of  the  world  are 
wiser  than  the  children  of  the  light,"  the  direction  to  the  dis- 
ciples as  to  the  children  of  the  light,  how  they,  as  such,  are  to 
exercise  prudence,  is  added,  and  2)  in  vs.  10-12  to  the  ex- 
pression, "  Make  for  yourselves  friends  with  the  unrighteous 
mammon  .  .  .  ,"  is  appended  the  apothegm,  "  He  that  is  faith- 
ful ia  the  least  things,  is  faithful  also  in  much,"  etc.  The 
transition  from  prudence  to  fidelity  is  here  formed  by  the 
"  making  of  friends  with  the  unrighteous  mammon,'*  which  is 
as  well  an  act  of  prudence  as  of  fidelity  ;  of  prudence,  so  far  as 
it  leads  to  the  goal  —  to  admittance  into  the  eternal  mansions  ; 
of  fidelity,  so  far  as  charitableness  is  the  true  and  divinely 
ordained  administration  of  mammon.  In  fidelity  with  refer- 
ence to  these  worldly  and  external  possessions  it  must  appear 
whether  one  will  be  faithful  over  the  heavenly  and  inalienal)le 
possessions.  And  now,  vs.  13  :  '"No  man  can  serve  two  mas- 
ters "  . .  .  ?  The  connecting  thought  is  that  of  fidelity,  fidelity, 
that  is  to  say,  with  reference  to  the  dX-qOivov  or  v/xeTepov.  This 
consists  in  serving  the  same  undividedly  and  without  thinking 
of  what  has  been  left  behind.  Here,  evidently,  as  already  in 
what  precedes,  the  idea  of  charitableness  is  entirely  dropped, 
and  only  the  idea  of  fidelity  is  retained.  It  is  a  difficult  ques- 
Lukexvi.  tion,  whether  the  account  of  the  rich  man  (Luke  xvi.  19  ff.), 
stands  in  connection  with  what  precedes.  The  answer  cannot 
be  given  without  an  examination  of  the  parable  itself,  on  which 
see  below.  Here  only  the  following :  There  is  evidently 
no  connection  with  vs.  18  ("whosoever  shall  put  away  his 
wife  .  .  .").  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  well  connected  with 
vs.  14.  and  vs.  15,  since  vs.  16-18  are  detached  apothegms,  as 
DO  one  can  deny.  Jesus  having  spoken  depreciatingly  of 
earthly  goods  (vs.  1-13),  the  rich  Pharisees  turned  up  their 


19  ff. 


THE   CONNECTION.  157 

noses  at  him,  the  pauper,  and  thought :  hinc  illae  lacrymae ! 
It  is  very  remarkable  tliat  hereupon  follows  on  Jesus's  part  not 
immediately  a  denunciation  of  their  worship  of  mammon,  but 
only  of  their  self-righteousness.  Possibly  the  Evangelist  here 
has  not  put  this  denunciation  in  the  right  place.  But  if  the 
connection  is  correct,  or  at  least  was  designed  by  the  Evange- 
list, the  matter  may  be  thought  of  thus  ;  the  rich  have  in  the 
world  the  prepossession  of  merit,  of  righteousness,  and  of  piety; 
every  good  action  in  them  is  more  observed  and  more  highly 
appreciated  than  if  a  poor  and  obscure  man  performs  it,  and  so 
it  comes  about  that  they  themselves  set  a  higher  estimate  on 
their  righteousness.  This  now  Jesus  urges  only  against  the 
usual  over-estimate  of  oneself  (v.  15).  To  this,  now,  vs.  19  ff., 
might  be  joined  more  naturally  by  as  much  as  this  shows,  with- 
out any  reference  to  the  moral  worth  of  the-  rich  and  the  poor, 
how,  ceteris  paribus,  a  good  lot  w^ill  fall  to  the  part  of  the  poor 
man  and  a  bad  lot  to  the  part  of  the  rich  man  in  the  world  to 
come.  Only  the  intercalated  apothegms  (vs.  16-18)  make  this 
connection  somewhat  uncertain.  Very  uncertain  also  is  the  con- 
nection of  Matt.  vii.  G  :  "  Bestow  not  what  is  holy  upon  the  dogs,"  Matt,  vii,  6. 
etc.  The  exhortation  not  to  judge  and  not  to  see  the  mote  in  the 
brother's  eye  precedes.  What  congruity  now  has  the  expres- 
sion cited  with  this  ?  This  seems,  indeed,  precisely  to  presup- 
pose and  to  demand  a  Kptveiv.  If  any  one  would  regard  this 
expression  as  mis2:)laced,  this  could  hardly  be  repelled  as  an 
impropriety.  Yet  we  are  to  examine  still  more  closely, 
whether  this  want  of  connection  is  not  merely  apparent.  In 
fact  Bengel  here  seems  to  have  struck  upon  the  right  view, 
when  he  observer  on  this  passage  :  Hie  occurritur  alteri  ex-^ 
tremo.  Extrema  enim  sunt :  judicare  non  judicandos  et  cani- 
bus  sancta  dare  :  nimia  severitas  et  nimia  laxitas.  Not  unfre- 
quently  may  the  connection  be  doubtful,  when  the  expression 
under  consideration  shows  in  a  parallel  passage  another  and  a 
more  suitable  connection.  See  e.g.  Matt,  xviii.  12-14  (the  :\iatt.  xvin. 
parable  of  the  Lost  Sheep),  which  is  here  referred  to  the  chil-  Luke xv .4-6 
dren,  while  in  Luke  xv.  4-6  —  far  more  suitably,  apparently — 
14 


158  SINGLE    OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

Matt.  xi.  25  it  is  applied  to  sinners.     Further,  Matt.  xi.  25  (the  rendering 
coll.  Luke  ^  iii/Ni-r 

X.  21.  of  thanks  by  Jesus  for  the  truth  revealed  to  the  vT^Trtot;),  which 

passage  stands  here  pretty  abruptly  ;  or,  if  it  stands  in  any  sort 
of  connection  with  the  foregoing  denunciation  of  the  impenitent 
cities,  still  the  connection  is  very  loose,  while  the  words  in 
Luke  X.  21  seem  to  be  far  better  prepared  for  through  what 
Matt.  xii.  S3  precedes.  So  also  the  expression.  Matt.  xii.  33  (■^  TrotTJo-arc 
vii.iGfr  TO  SivSpov  KaXbu  .  .  .),  appears,  in  the  apologetical  discourse 
against  the  Pharisees,  who  had  attributed  his  healing  of  a 
demoniac  to  a  covenant  with  Beelzebub,  far  from  being  so 
suitable  as  in  Matt.  vii.  16f.  But  we  must  here  repeat,  that 
The  inter-  the  Jzrst  question  with  the  interpreter  of  the  Gospels  is  not, 
questioia.  whether  Jesus  himself  spoke  the  words  under  consideration  in 
this  connection,  but  whether  the  J^vangelist  has  aimed  at  a 
connection,  and  what.  Now,  with  reference  to  the  passages 
just  cited,  a  connection  may  without  difficulty  be  shown  ;  Matt, 
xviii.  12  f.,  joins  the  simile  to  the  warning,  not  to  despise  the 
little  ones,  nor  to  give  them  a  a-Kav^oKov,  since  precisely  they  are 
in  esteem  with  God.  Matt.  xi.  25  does  not,  to  be  sure,  con- 
nect with  the  preceding  as  well  as  does  Luke  x.  21,  yet  it  is 
difTicult  to  overlook  the  fact,  that  as  the  thanksgiving  is  in  a 
general  way  opposed  to  the  denunciation,  so  the  vtj-lol  are 
opposed  to  the  cities,  which  '•  are  exalted  to  the  heavens." 
Matt.  xii.  33,  finally,  forms  an  integral  j^art  of  the  apologetical 
discourse  ;  since  after  Jesus  had  up  to  vs.  32  made  special  refer- 
ence to  the  contumelious  speech  of  the  Pharisees,  his  discourse 
is  now  generalized,  referring,  as  he  does,  their  reviling  to  its 
root,  their  corrupted  sense,  and  saying  :  from  this,  to  be  sure, 
can  no  other  than  bad  fruit,  perverse  words,  proceed.  What 
has  been  said  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  princi- 
Principles.    ples :  1)  No   passage  is   to  be  explained   otherwise   than 

from  its  connection.  2)  If  no  connection  is  manifest,  and 
the  passage  appears  isolated,  we  must  first  examine  carefully 
whether  there  is  not  such  a  connection  after  all ;  but  in  tliiij  vre 
are  to  guard  against  substituting  a  connection  nntJtougld  of  by 
the  author.         3)    Whether  the  counectiou  formed  is  really 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  159 

present,  and  whether  it  is  the  right  connection,  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained only  by  a  special  examination  of  the  conjunctions,  and 
by  a  general  consideration  of  the  intention  of  the  whole  course 
of  thought. 

P)    The  Parallel  Passages} 

29.   General  View  of  the  Sub]ect. 

The  employment  of  parallel  passages  must  go  hand  in  hand 
with  attention  to  the  connection.    The  mere  explanation  accord- 
ing to  the  connection  often  fails  to  secure  the  certainty  that  is 
desired,  at  least  in  cases  where  the  linguistic  usage  under  con- 
sideration and  the  analogous  thought  cannot  at  the  same  time 
be    otherwise    established.     Parallel    passages    may    be    such,  Yarions 
either  according  to  the  mere  language,  or  according  to  the  sub-  parallels, 
ject-matter,  or  both  at  the  same  time.      Verbal  parallels  estab-  Verbal 
lish  points  of  linguistic  usage.     Now  various  cases  may  here  r^^^^ 


occur  :  a)  Either  the  meaning  of  a  word  arrived  at  through 
the  parallel  passage  agrees  with  that  demanded  by  the  connec- 
tion, or  not ;  P)  Either  the  meaning  of  a  word  is  sufficiently 
supported  by  linguistic  usage,  but  does  not  suit  the  connection ; 
or  in  general  the  word  is  rare  (either  in  Greek  generally,  or  at 
least  in  biblical  Greek).  Js  a  rendering  otherwise  sutRciently 
known  and  assured,  but  unsuitable  to  the  connection  ?  Then 
we  are  not  to  be  content  simply  with  the  sense  demanded  by 
the  connection,  but  we  must  ascertain  whether  this  sense  is 
corroborated  by  parallel  passages.  If  so,  the  rare  rendering 
may  be  regarded  as  assured.  As  evidence  for  the  meaning  of 
a  word  such  parallel  passages  are  often  also  of  importance  for 
the  thought.  Only  we  must  not  be  satisfied,  without  further 
investigation,  with  what  the  lexicons  afford.  The  ultra  lexica 
sapere  is  incumbent  upon  the  exegete.  If  an  unusual  render- 
ing is  under  consideration,  the  passage  must  be  studied  with 
especial  thoroughness.     To    illustrate  :  Wahl's  Lexicon    gives  liiustra- 

among  the  definitions  of  ah€X(l>6'iy  consangiiineus,  and  bases  tlie  Waiii's 

Lexicon. 
1  Cellerier,  Manuel  d'llermeneutique  Biblique,  pp.  115-117  and  •205-2-27, 
very  valuable,  as  well  for  the  principles  set  forth  as  for  the  abundant  ex- 
amples of  the  application  of  the  principles.  —  Tr. 


160         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

rendering  on  Matt.  xiii.  55,  56  ;  John  vii.  1  ;  Acts  i.  14.     But 
an  attentive  examination  of  these  passages  makes  this  render- 
ing extremely  doubtfuh     The  error  comes  evidently  of  clinging 
too  fondly  to  the  traditional  supposition    that   Jesus  had  no 
brothers  according  to  the  flesh.     Again,  ohsequium  Evangelio 
dehitum  is  adduced  as  a  meaning  of  (IkotJ  ^  with  a  reference  to 
Gal.  iii.  2,  5.     The  groundlessness  of  this  rendering  appears,  on 
a  closer  examination  of  the  passage,  from  the  well-known  Hel- 
lenistic usage  transmitted  through  the  LXX  into  the  N.  T., 
according  to  which  aKo-q  means  "tidings"   (nr^irTL').     Just  as 
little  will  the  scientific  exegete  rest  content  with  Wahl's  defini- 
tion of  KXrjaL<;  n.s  felicitas,  ad  quam  spectat  invitatio  Dei.  since 
2  Thess.  i.  11,  the  passage  cited  in  its  support,  admits  at  least 
Example  of  of  Still  one  Other  interpretation.    On  the  other  hand,  an  authen- 
ofpafaUels^  tic  Verbal  parallel  may  be  an  exceedingly  welcome  support  for 
an  unusual  rendering,  and  a  discovery  of  this  kind  cannot  be 
too  carefully  preserved.     In  confirmation  of  what  has  been  said 
James  i.  17  we  refer  to  James  i.  17.     That  Tracra  in  this  passage  means  not, 
^^  •^-   ■      as  usual,  ''  all,"  but  rather  "  only,"  is,  indeed,  made  exceedingly 
probable  through  the  context.^     We  arrive  at  certainty  only 
John  iv.  37  through  the  parallel  passage  i.  2.     See  also  John  iv.  37  (6  Ao- 
22.  705  IcTTLv  6  a\7]0iv6<;).     The  usual  meaning  of  aX7)0Lv6s,  genuine , 

seems  to  be  inadmissible  here.^  ^AXrjOwo'i  seems,  therefore,  to  be 
here  put  for  aXr]0-^<;.  The  context  can  in  this  case  also,  however, 
only  establish  a  probability,  and  this  probability  neecTs  the  support 
of  at  least  one  parallel  passage.  Such  a  passage  is,  in  fact^  Heb. 
x.  22  :  fxer  aXyjOivrj^  /capSt'a?  . . . ,  where  the  meaning,  true,  admits 
John  ix.  39  o:^  no  doubt.  Cf.  further,  John  ix.  39  :  ei's  Kpifxa  eyw  c'i?  rov 
xi.  33,'and    Kocr/xov  .  .  .  rjXOov,  and  now  follows  the  epexegesis  :  "  that  the 

Juhu  V.  9. 

1  Alford,  "that  prcachinu;  which  proclaimed  (the)  faith."  Crcmer,  Bib. 
Theol.  Lex  of  the  X.  T.  Greek,  "What  is  heard  (said)  about  faith."  So, 
Meyer.  —  Tr. 

'■^  Jul.  Miiller,  Lehrc  d.  Siinde  1.  322:  "James  does  not  wish  to  express 
the  thouiiht,  that  everything;  that  is  ^ood  conies  from  God,  but  that  every- 
thin';  wliich  comes  from  God  is  fiood."  —  Tii. 

3  Godet,  in  loc  :  "  .  .  .  in  the  ordinary  Johannic  sense,  the  word  that 
corresponds  to  the  essence  of  the  thinjr."  So  also  Meyer.  DeWette's  view 
is  similar  to  that  expressed  in  the  text.  —  Tk. 


PARALLEL   PASSAGES.  161 

blind  may  become  possessed  of  si^bt  and  tbe  seeing  may  become 
blind."     But  i\ow  Kplfxa  means  penal  judgment     Should  it  be 
sought  to   retain  this  meaning  here  also  it  would  be  suitable 
only  to  the  second  member  of  the  final  proposition.     And  yet, 
the  context  shows  that  Kplixa  refers  to  the  first  member  at  least 
as  much  as  to  the  second,  and  that  Kplfxa  is  here  very  probably 
used  for  Kplat^J     But  can  this  be  justified  by  linguistic  usage  ? 
That  Kp'ia-is  and  Kplfxa  are,  by  way  of  exception,  used  promis- 
cuously for  L'5'd^  (in  the  LXX  usually  translated  by  Kpl/xa,  by 
way  of  exception  by  Kptais),  cf.  Kpt/xara,  Rom.  xi.  33,  where  it 
cannot  possibly  mean  "  penal  judgments,"  but  only  "  decisions," 
with  Kplo-ts,  John  v.  20,  where  the  word  must  mean  "  penal 
judgment."     Cf .  finally,  the  vexed  words,  John  viii.  37  :  .  .  .  John  riii. 
t,riTelT€  /x€  dTTO/crervat,  otl  6  Xoyos  6  c>os  ov  x<^P"  ^  V'^''-      The 
.usual  meaning  of  x<^P"»^  is  to  give  place,  but  this  is  not  at  all 
suitable  here.    In  profane  Greek  (with  the  kolvoU)  it  means  also 
succedere,  incrementum  capere,  and  so  it  is  taken  here  by  respec- 
table exegetes  ;  but  not  only  does  this  sense  appear  too  flat, 
and  "  the  absence  of  progress  on  the  part  of  the  word  in  the 
hearts  of  the  hearers  "  furnish  no  sufficient  ground  for  the  ^rirdr€ 
fjie  aTroKTelvai;  but  also    the    circumstance,  that    the    meaning 
succedere  occurs  nowhere  else  at  all  in  the  New  Testament,  is 
unfavorable  to  its  adoption  here  ;  wLile  on  the  one  hand  the 
sensuous  meaning,  "tohold,tocontain  "  (John  ii.  6  ;  Mark  ii.  2), 
and  a  tropical  meaning,  to  conceive,  intelUgere  (Matt.  xix.  11  ; 
2  Cor.  vii.  2),  are  assured   through  New  Testament  linguistic 
usage.     Here  now,  to  be   sure,  the  exceptional   circumstance 
occurs  that  x^p^tv  is  used  intransitively.     ATe  might  now  (with 
Origen  and  Nonnus)  take  the  Iv  vplv  as  brachylogical  for  ct? 
v/Atts  and  translate  6v  x^pet  cv  vixXv,  finds  not  entrance  into  you; 
but  this  is  wholly  unsupported  by  linguistic  usage,  however 
suitable  it  would  be  to  the  context.     It  seems  best,  therefore, 
to  render  the  difficult  expression  according  to  the  analogy  of 

1  Some  of  the  best  authorities  (Meyer,  Goclct,  Cremer)  regard  Kplfxa 
as  not  necessarily  meaning  penal  judgment,  but  as  a  vox  media.  DeWette : 
"  Kpliia  =  Kplais."  —  Tr. 
14* 


step. 


162         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

Mark  ii.  2,  where,  as  here,  x^P^^^  stands  intransitively,  has  not 
place  in  you. 

30.    Hapax   Legomena. 

Tliis  example  of  an  extremely  rare  rendering  of  an  expres- 
sion brings  us  to  the  question  —  how  we  are  to  deal  with  aTra^ 
A-cyo/xeVots,  and  indeed,  first  of  all,  with  expressions  which  are 
not  in  themselves  strictly  air.  X^y.  but  whose  meaning  in  the 

The  first  given  passage  is  altogether  singular.  Here  we  are  first  to 
ascertain  whether  a  rendering  supported  by  the  linguistic  usage 
is  not  really  admissible  in  the  connection  in  question.  Some- 
times this  only  appears  to  be  the  case,  and  the  "  inadmissibility" 
rests  only  on  the  fact  that  the  word  taken  in  its  usual  meaning 
does  not  give  the  sense  which  the  exegete  expected  before- 
hand. But  if  the  familiar  rendering  really  gives  no  tolerable 
sense,  we  have  to  depend  entirely  on  the  connection,'  yet  so 
that  we  adhere  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  analogy  of  an 
established  rendering  (see  above).     This  does  not,  of  course, 

Distinc-  apply  to  air.  A.cy.  proper.  But  we  are  to  distinguish  be- 
tween ttTT.  Xcy.  which  are  such  merely  in  the  New  Testament^ 
and  ttTT.  Acy.  which  are  such  altogether.  The  former,  if  their 
meaning  is  not  clear  in  itself,  find  their  parallels  in  other  Ilel- 
lenistic  literature,  i.e.  in  the  LXX  and  other  Greek  translations 
of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  Apocrypha,  or  in  the  Pseudepi- 
graph=!,  in  "Josephus  and  Philo,  or  finally  in  the  KotVois^  But 
with  regard  to  the  absolute  (xtt.  Xcy.  for  which  no  parallel 
passages  are  to  be  found,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  we  are  to 
have  recourse  for  the  establishing  of  their  meaning  partly  to 
the  etymology  and  partly  to  the  ancient  Greek  interpreters. 
The  most  noted  and  the  most  disputed  example  is  tVtot'o-to?, 
Matt.  vi.  11;  Luke  xi,  3.  Cf.  also  Tno-riKo'?,  Mark  xiv.  3  ; 
John  xii.  3. 

3I>   What  are  Genuine  Parallels? 
"We  have  seen  earlier  how  often  interpreters  have  allowed 
themselves  to  be  led  astray  by  apparent  parallels,  i.  e.  by  simi- 
larity of  an  expression.    The  question,  therefore,  arises  :  What, 

iSeeUl. 


tloas. 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES. 


163 


then,  are  genuine  parallel  passages  ?     In  this  relation  different  Genuine^ 
kinds  and  degrees  are  to  be  distinguished  ;       {a)  Cases  in  which  p^.g^ges 
the  same  subject  is  undoubtedly  spoken  oi  even  if  not  in  the  Ef^^ter!'"' 
same  terms.     Cf.  Luke  xiv.  26.     Here  the  expression  Ss  . . .  o^  Luke  xix.^ 
/xio-cr  Tov  iraripa  airov  ...  is  painfully  severe.     Does  a  passage  x^sTandvi. 
perchance  occur  elsewhere,  in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  the  same 
matter?     To  be  sure ;  cf.  Matt.  x.  37  :  -  He  that  loveth  father 
or  mother  more  than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me."     Therefore  not 
a  positive  hatred  is  spoken  of  in  the  first  passage,  but  only  a 
disregarding  or  not  loving.     But  can  such  a  meaning  of  ixlct^Iv 
be  sustained  ?     Cf.  Matt  vi.  24  :  OvScU  Swarai  Sv(tl  KvpioL^  8ov- 
Xevetv,  ri  yap  tov  ha  fxiarjaeL  k.  tov  hcpov  ^.yaTrrjacL  k.tX      Here 
ljiL(rc7v  is  simply  the  negation  of  ^yaTrai/,  and  so  the  sense  in  the 
passage  first  cited  is:  Where  there  is  collision  of  obligations 
.  (cf.  Matt.  X.  35  sq.),  it  is  the  disciple's  duty  to  sacrifice  family 
ties  to  love  to  Christ.     Cf.  further,  Matt.  xix.  24  :  evKOTrcurcpoV  |ia«.  xix. 
ianv  KdfirjXov  Bta  rpvirrnxaro^  ^^a<^i8os   tk^XOCiv  ^   irXovaiov  eZsMarkx.Zl. 
rrjv  l^aaiXuav  rwv  oipavC^v.     This  passage  has  likewise  given 
much  offence  by  reason  of  its  severity.    However  objectionable, 
now,  it  may  be  to  allow  our  subjective  aversion  to  weaken 
down  the  meaning  of  the  words,  yet  must  a  parallel  passage  be 
welcome  which  explains  at  least  that  harsh  expression.     Such 
a  passage  is  jNIark  x.  24  :  tt^s  S^VkoXoV  iartv  tov?  TrcTrot^o'ras 
cVl   XP^rM<^o-tv    ek    TTiv   (SaatXelav  toO  O^od    ^LdcXOelv.       Without 
doubt  the  words  stand  in  Matthew  in  their  original  form,  while 
the  passage   in  Mark  has   somewhat  the  nature  of  a  gloss. 
But  however  much  everything  that  smacks  of  glossing  is  ex- 
posed to  criticism,  it  is  still  often  very  welcome  in  an  exegeti- 
cal  relation.     Here  we  have  really  an  explanation  of  the  words 
of  Jesus  reaching  up  hard  on  to  the  Apostolic  age.     Yet  we 
must  in  such  cases  guard  against  defacing  the  brusque  origin- 
ality of  Christ's  words.    We  sometimes  meet  with  an  expression  "^^J^^Hf- 
not  offensive,  but  only  unintelligible,  cf.  1  Pet.  ii.  5.     Here  the  sions.__  ^ 
readers  are  exhorted,  aveveyKai  Trvcv/xartKa?  Ovata^  cvTrpoaBiKTov^ 
6c(o.  .  .  .  There  may  be  an  uncertainty  as  to  what  is  meant  by 
TTv^vii.  Ova,     Now  a  parallel  passage  presents  itself,  which  coix- 


164  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  TUE   INTERPRETER. 

tains  not,  indeerl,  precisely  the  same  expression,  but  the  same 
thought,  viz.  Rom.  xii.  1,  where  believers  are  exhorted  Trapa- 
(TTrja-aL  to.  craj/xara  .  .  .   Bvaiav    ^waav    aytav  evdpearov  rw  6e(2. 
From  tliis  simple  passage  it  is  evident  that  Trvevfj.aTLKal  Ovaiai 
(the  Bvala  t,Q)cra)  means  nothing  else  than  the  devotion  of  the 
body  to  God.     Do  we  desire  to  learn  still  more  precisely  what 
the  Apostle  means  by  7rapao-~i}o-at  to.  croj/xaTa  ?     Rom.  vi.  19  in- 
forms us :   ''  As   ye   have   yielded   your  members  servants  to 
uncleanness  and  to  iniquity  .  .  .  even  so  now  yield  your  mem- 
bers (Trapaa-TrjaaTe  to.  /xikyj  vfxoiv)  servants  to  righteousness,"  i.e. 
just  as  you  in  your  old  life  used  your  members  as  organs  of 
sin,  so  now  in  your  new  life  let  your  members  serve  as  organs 
Parallel       of  righteousness.         jS)   Parallel  passages  which  are  such  as 
standing  in  Well  according  to  the  expression  as  according  to  the  sense,  but 
connections  whicli  Stand  in  the  one  place  either  without  connection  or  in  a 
3iatt.  vii.     connection  different  from  that  of  the  other.     Cf.  Matt.  vii.  13, 
Lukpxiii.     14:  "Enter  ye  in  at  the   straight  s^ate  .  .  .  ."     These  words, 

23  24.  o        o  ' 

which  stand  in  Matthew  without  connection,  have  in  Luke  xiii. 
23,  24  an  excellent  connection  :  to  the  question,  ei  oXiyoi  ol 
cr(jjt,6iJi€voL,  Jesus  answers,  ayujvL^eo-Oe  dacXOdv  .  .  . ,  i.e.  instead 
of  troubling  yourselves  with  the  idle  question  whether  many  or 
few  shall  be  saved,  strive  rather,  that  you  may  belong  to  the 
Matt.  vii.  few,  etc.  Cf.  further,  Matt.  vii.  7-11 :  "Ask  and  it  shall  be 
Luke  xi.'  given  to  you."  This  passage  also  stands  isolated  in  Matthew; 
and  although  it  is  clear  in  itself,  so  far  as  the  language  is  con- 
cerned, yet  it  receives  in  Luke  xi.  9-13,  through  the  connection, 
its  excellent  elucidation  ;  trusting  in  God  as  the  hearer  of 
prayer  is  spoken  of,  and  —  by  dint  of  an  argument  a  minori 
ad  majus' —  by  the  example  of  a  lazy  friend,  who  yet  may  be 
aroused  through  persistent  entreaty,  it  is  shown  that  so  much 
more  promptly  will  God  hear  those  that  pray,  and  through  the 
example  of  fathers  who  are  Trovepat,  and  yet  can  give  good  gifts 
to  their  children,  it  is  shown  that  so  much  more  the  good 
Father  in  heaven  will  give  gox)d  gifts  to  his  own,  if  they  ask 
Matt.  XXV.    bim  for  them.     The  parable  of  the  Talents  has  in  Matt.  xxv. 

14  coll.  Luke  * 

»x,  Uff      14  ff.  only  the  general  meaning,  that  if  the  master  should  re- 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  165 

turn  and  demand  a  reckoning  the  truth  would  come  to  light ; 
but  in  Luke  xix.  11  ff.,  a  more  definite  motive  is  apparent, 
viz.  the  expectation  of  the  crowd,  which  accompanied  Jesus  on 
his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  that  very  soon  the  glory  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  was  to  be  revealed.  To  this  carnal  expectation 
the  Lord  opposes  in  the  parable  the  doctrine  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  consists  not  in  reward  and  luxury,  but  in  fidelity 
in  little  things.  y)  Frequently  it  is  entirely  beyond  doubt  Parallel 
that  two  expressions  are  parallel,  yet  they  stand  in  different  dissimilarly 
connections,  and  are  dissimilarly  occasioned  (cf.  above,  §  26). 
We  add  to  the  examples  there  adduced  still  the  following :  Matt.  ^ratt.  vU. 

^  ^  *  21  f  coll. 

vii.  21  f.  coll.  Luke  xiii.  25-28.    In  both  places  the  pretensions  Luke  xiii. 

25-28 

of  those  that  rely  on  certain  points  of  pre-eminence,  and  that 
think  themselves  entitled  through  these  to  participation  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  are  rebuffed ;  in  Matthew  these  j^rerogatives 
arc  great  deeds  and  results  in  God's  kingdom,  in  Luke  per- 
sonal acquaintance  and  communion  with  Jesus.  In  both  places 
it  is  shown,  that  such  points  of  pre-eminence  do  not  insure 
entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  So  also  Matt.  xiii.  16,  17  Matt.  xiii. 
coll.  Luke  X.  23,  24.  According  to  Matthew,  Jesus  has  replied  Luke  x.  23, 
to  the  question  of  the  disciples,  why  he  spoke  to  the  people  in 
parables  :  "  To  you  it  is  given  to  understand  the  mysteries  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  to  them  it  is  not  given  .  .  .  ." 
Now  the  circle  of  view  widens,  and  Jesus  proceeds  :  (Not  only' 
are  you  blessed  beyond  the  blind  and  dumb  op^Xos,  but  even  • 
beyond  the  saints  of  the  old  covenant,  since)  "  many  prophets 
and  righteous  men  have  desired  to  see  those  things  which  ye 
see,"  etc  Luke  gives  the  same  expression  in  a  different  but 
just  as  suitable  a  connection  :  •  The  seventy  having  returned 
from  their  mission,  and  having  spoken  of  its  great  results, 
Jesus  replies  that  they  ought  not  to  rejoice  over  their  results, 
but  rather  that  their  names  are  written  in  heaven.  Then, 
however,  he  thanks  his  Father  that  he  has  revealed  the  mys- 
teries of  the  kingdom  not  to  the  wise  and  prudent,  but  to 
vr]irLOL<:  —  even  to  those  simple-minded  disciples.  To  this  now 
is   closely   joined   the   benediction   to   the   seventy   disciples : 


166 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 


What  are 
genuine 
parallel  pas- 
sages ? 


The  old 
view. 


Modem 
view. 


Tlie  use  of 
the  U.  T.  in 
the  N.  T. 

Djaniiold, 


Important 
diatinclioDS 


"  Blessed  are  3'our  eyes,"  etc.  Thus  we  see:  genuine  parallel 
passages  are  not  such  as  are  similar  in  language,  but  not  in 
sense,  or  are  identical  in  expression,  but  different  in  purpose. 
Genuine  parallel  passages  are  rather  such  as  1)   are  identi- 

cal, if  not  verbally  yet  in  subject-matter  and  in  purpose ;  but 
particularly,  such  as  2)  are  the  same  in  language  and  in 
thought,  but  of  which  the  one  is  more  intelligible  than  the 
other,  and  such  as  3)  exhibit  in  a  good  and  appropriate 
connection  an  expression  standing  without  connection  or  in  an 
unsuitable  connection.  Such  genuine  parallel  passages  are, 
with  the  connection,  an  important  aid  to  interpretation. 

32.   Old  Testament  Citations  in  the  Kew  Testament, 

But  there  is  still  a  whole  class  of  parallel  passages  to  be 
considered,  viz.  Old  Testament  citations  in  the  New  Testament} 
It  was  formerly  believed,  the  view  being  supported  by  the  doc- 
trine of  the  absolute  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  the  Old  Testament  passages  have  really  the  meaning 
which  the  New  Testament  writers  attribute  to  them ;  but  this 
■sense  could  be  brought  out  only  by  violence,  and  by  disregard- 
ing the  most  firmly  established  exegetical  j)rinciples.  This 
prejudice  is  now,  to  be  sure,  in  our  time,  a  vanquished  stand- 
point :  yet  there  are  not  wanting  in  recent  times,  interpreters 
who  will  not  openly  and  freely  take  the  position  that  the  New 
Testament  writers  cite  usually  without  dny  reference  to  the 
local  sense  and  connection,  often  under  the  employment  of 
allegorizing  and  typologizing,  with  arbitrary  2'>ressing  of  the 
words.  But  here  also  it  holds  good  that  an  "  orthodoxy " 
(Glaiibigkeit)  is  good  for  nothing,  that  is  in  conflict  with  a 
better  knowledge  and  conscience.  The  use  made  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  New  is,  now,  very  manifold  ;  from  the  literal 
application  to  the  most  daring  allegorizing,  from  an  employ- 
ment excellent  on  the  whole  to  the  greatest  arbitrariness. 
Every  individual  citation,  therefore,  requires  an  especial  ex- 
amination. First  of  all,  we  are  to  ascertain  v/hether  the 
passage  in  hand  is  a  real  citation  or  a  mere  allusion  ;  next,  wo 

1  Cf.  Wei68,  Bib.  TUeol.,  pp.  270-271.  —  Tb. 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  167 

are  to  distinguish  between  a  citation  from  memory  merely,  and 
one  in  which  the  Old  Testament  passage  was  before  the  writer's 
eyes.     But  especially  is  the  citation  to  be  compared  with  the  Each  cita- 
Old  Testament  passage  itself,  and  it  is  to  be  ascertained,         1)  compared 
Whether,  as  is  usually  the  case,  the  citation  is  from  the  LXX,  o.  t.  pas- 
or  is  based  on  the  Hebrew  text,  and         2)   How  the  sense  of 
the  passage  in  the  New  Testament  is  related  to  that  in  the  Old. 
If  we  begin  with  the  last,  there  are      1)  well-applied  citations.  Weii-ap- 
Cf.  Matt.  iii.  3  and  parallel  passages,  where  John  the  Baptist  tions. 
refers  the  words  Isa.  xl.  3  to  himself.     The  connection  of  the  Jou/isa.*  ^ 
passage  in  Isaiah  shows  that  there  the  approaching  liberation  ^'  ^' 
and  return  from  exile  is  proclaimed  ;  the  people  are  about  to 
return  gloriously,  Jehovah   their  liberator  and  king  at  their 
head ;  a  herald,  according  to  the  oriental  custom,  goes  before, 
and  commands   that   the   way  be   prepared  and  all   obstacles 
removed.     This    connection   and   local  meaning  is,  of  course, 
entirely  disregarded  in  the  New  Testament  passage  ;  besides, 
in  the  Hebrew  ^27533  is  probably  to  be  joined  not  with  N'^^p  Vp, 
but  with  the  following  asQ .     But  the  LXX  and  other  Greek 
translators,  as  Symmachus,  connect  Iv  rrj  iptj(Jno  with  /SoCjvto^, 
as  in  the  New  Testament  passage.     If  we  inquire  now  concern- 
ing the  application,  it  is  clear  that  the  "  preparing  of  the  way," 
which  in  the  passage  in  Isaiah  has  its  literal  meaning  is  here 
transferred  to  the  spiritual.     But  the  transference  is  very  ap- 
propriate, the  point  of  comparison  being  the  preparatory  and 
preliminary  work   to   be   accomplished   here,  namely,  through 
John's  preaching  of  re2:)entance,  which  is   to  prepare  for  the 
coming  Redeemer  an  entrance  into  the  hearts  of  men.  Another 
passaoe  in  point  is  Luke  iv.  18-21  coll.  Isa.  Ixi.  1,  2.     This  Luke  iv. 

^  "^       .  .  ,  1        /.  ,  .      .  1      ,       18-21  coll. 

passage  is  very  important  from  the  lact  that  it  is  made  by  Isa.  ixi.1,2. 
Jesus  a  text  for  the  discourse  that  follows,  and  his  own  com- 
ing is  regarded   as  the  precise  fulfilment  of  that  expression. 
Deutero-Isaiah  ^   declares   that    he    has   been  inspired  by  the 

1  It  is  now  the  prevailinf^  opinion  among  scholars,  based  chiefly  upon 
internal  gronnds,  tliat  llie  latter  part  of  Isaiah  (from  chap,  xl  to  the  end) 
was  written  not  by  Isaiah,  but  by  a  "  great  unknown  "  (Ewald)  during  the 
Exile.  In  favor  of  this  view  are  such  writers  as  Ewald,  Bleek,  et  al. ;  per 
contra^  see  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  Art  "  Isaiah."  —  Tr. 


168  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

Spirit  of  the  Lord  to  bring  joyful  tidings  to  the  poor,  to  heal 
the  broken-hearted,  etc.  This  word  of  assurance  to  the  Israel- 
ites in  captivity  and  languishing  in  wretchedness,  Jesus  now 
applies  to  himself  and  to  his  hearers.  They,  indeed,  are  not  in 
captivity,  not  in  the  dark  dungeon,  and  are  not  to  expect  an 
emancipation  in  the  politico-theocratical  sense ;  neither  is  the 
word  of  Jesus,  any  more  than  the  similar  expression  in  Luke  vii. 
22,  to  be  limited  to  the  individual  acts  of  healing  performed  by 
Jesus,  but  it  has  a  broader  import  as  the  words  tttco^^oI  cmy- 
ycXt^oi/rat  and  evtavros  Kvplov  Sc/ctos  show.  And  if  the  prophet 
felt  himself  impelled  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  such  a  proclama- 
tion, in  a  still  fuller  sense  Jesus  himself  felt  impelled  to  an- 
nounce redemption  from  a  Babylon  of  sin.  and  a  time  of  salva- 
Rom.  xi.  tion.  The  citation  from  1  Kings  xix.  10, 18  in  Rom.  xi.  2-4  is, 
iKings'xix.  also  very  appropriate.  In  the  section  chs.  ix.-xi.  Paul  inquires 
'    '  into  the  extent  to  which  the  Israelites  are  excluded  from  salva- 

tion in  Christ,  and  having  shown  from  Old  Testament  types 
that  salvation  is  purely  a  matter  of  grace,  but  that  Israel, 
through  its  offence  at  salvation  bestowed  of  grace,  has  itself 
deserved  exclusion,  he  comes  now  to  the  principal  question, 
Whether  God  has  really,  as  apparently,  cast  Israel  away.  This 
he  denies,  and  adduces  in  support  of  his  position  an  analogous 
case  in  the  history  of  Elijah  :  Just  as  Elijah,  when  he  fled  from 
Ahab  and  Jezabel,  believed  that  the  people  had  fallen  away 
from  the  true  God,  but  through  the  divine  oracle  received  the 
answer,  I  have  yet  reserved  unto  myself  a  kernel  of  seven 
thousand  men,  who  have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal,  —  so  is 
it  also  now  ;  now  also  the  whole  people  seems  unbelieving  and 
shut  out  from  the  salvation  in  Christ,  but  now  also  tliere  exists 
a  holy  kernel  of  faithful  ones.  Now  it  is,  indeed,  undeniable 
that  the  historical  sense  in  the  two  passages  is  not  the  same  ;  in 
the  Old  Testament  passage  the  reference  is  to  the  falling  away 
from  the  true  God  into  idolatry,  in  the  passage  in  Romans,  on. 
the  other  hand,  it  is  to  the  rejection  of  the  Gospel ;  there  it  is 
fidelity  to  the  old  God,  here  it  is  faith  in  the  new  salvation. 
Of  this  the  Apostle  takes  no  account  at  all,  but  confines  him- 


PARALLEL   PASSAGES.  169 

self  simply  to  what  is  in  fact  the  principal  thing  :  that  among 
the  mass  estranged,  from  God,  there  is  left  a  holy  and  faith- 
ful kernel.  Thus  regarded  the  citation  is  exceedingly  appro- 
priate. But  there  are  2)  Citations  which  seem  unsuitable  Citations 
and  arbitrary,  but  which  as  regards  the  thought  are  entirely  unsuitable, 
just.  Cf.  Matt.  xxii.  31,  32  and  parall.  :  The  Sadducees  seek  juLt.^^'*  ^ 
to  confound  Jesus  by  an  insidious  question,  designed  to  reduce  sl^^'^Jff' 
belief  in  the  resurrection  ad  absurdum.  Jesus  in  his  rejoinder  ^^-  "^'  ^• 
reproaches  them  with  their  ignorance  of  Scripture,  and  cites  as 
a  proof-text  Ex.  iii.  6  :  '•  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac, 
and  of  Jacob  " ;  a  passage  apparently  very  far  from  the  ques- 
tion, while  other  Old  Testament  texts,  as  Isa.  xxvi.  19  ;  Ezek. 
xxxvii.,  would  have  been  far  moi'e  obviously  appropriate.  How, 
now,  are  these  words  applied  as  proof  of  the  resurrection  ?  On 
this  matter  the  words  that  follow  throw  light :  "  God  is  not  a 
God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living,"  i.e.  when  God  calls  himself 
the  God  of  the  patriarchs,  he  j^resupposes  that  he  continues  in 
union  with  them.  But  he  can  be  in  union  only  with  those  who 
exist  and  live.  The  nerve  of  the  thought  is  the  indissolubility 
of  union  with  God.  We  find  this  fundamental  thought  added 
in  Luke  xx.  38  :  ''  For  all  live  unto  him."  But  we  see  also 
that  it  is  not  meant  to  prove  here  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
but  that  rather  all  too  carnal  conceptions  of  the  future  life  are 
excluded  (cf.  vs.  30).  What  Jesus  would  prove  from  the  passage 
in  Exodus  is,  rather,  the  persistent  life  of  those  whose  God  he 
has  been.  Cf.  further.  Matt.  xiii.  14, 15.  Jesus  having  set  forth  Matt.  xiii. 
the  parable  of  the  Sower,  his  disciples  ask  him  why  he  speaks  isa.  vi.  9,10. 
to  the  people  in  parables.  He  answers  :  "  To  you  it  is  given 
to  understand  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  to 
them  it  is  not  given,  because  seeing  they  see  not,  and  hearing 
tliey  hear  not,"  etc.  Cf.  Isa.  vi.  9,  10  :  "Ye  will  hear  indeed, 
but  perceive  not,  for  the  heart  of  this  people  has  become  fat 
(unsusceptible),  etc.  The  sense  of  these  words  from  Isaiah 
seems  far  less  suitable  here  than  in  John  xii.  40  and  Acts 
xxviii.  26,  27  ;  since  here  the  peojile  have  given  as  yet  no  evi- 
dence at  all  of  insusceptibility  and  unbelief.  Besides,  even  if 
15 


170  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

this  were  the  case,  the  circumstance  mentioned  seems  to  be  no 
ground  for  the  words  in  the  parable.  Moreover,  even  his  dis- 
ciples failed  to  understand  that  parable,  cf.  vs.  18  and  Mark  iv. 
10,  13.  In  order  to  understand  the  saying  of  Jesus  we  must 
make  the  passage  in  Isaiah  on  which  it  is  based  our  starting- 
point.  Isaiah  after  having  received  his  consecration  as  prophet 
is  sent  forth  to  tlie  people  ;  but  instead  of  his  prophesying  s  find- 
ing receptive  ears,  eyes,  and  hearts,  the  result  is  the  opposite ;  nay, 
this  miscarriage  is  the  effect  of  his  preaching  itself » only  greater 
blindness  and  greater  obduracy  !  How  so  ?  The  word  of  God 
cannot  be  treated  with  mere  indifference,  it  cannot  remain  in- 
effectual, but  it  either  enlightens  and  awakens  or  else  it  blinds 
and  hardens.  This  is  the  tragic  appeal  of  the  prophet  to  the 
blind  and  stupid  people.  What  now  in  Isaiah's  time  was  the  fate 
of  the  prophet  and  that  of  the  people,  this  is,  in  general,  the  fate 
of  the  Messiah,  that  he  must  preach  to  deaf  ears,  yea  that  his 
preaching  makes  the  people's  ears  deafer  than  before ;  and  this  is 
the  fate  of  the  people,  that  as  their  fathers  were  hardened 
through  the  preaching  of  Isaiah,  now  also,  only  still  more,  they 
are  hardened  through  the  preaching  of  Jesus,  and  so  the  word 
of  Isaiah  must  be  fulfilled  in  the  late  posterity.  This  result  is 
so  much  the  more  surely  brought  about  through  the  veiled 
parabolical  sayings  ;  since  he  who  thinks  tliat  he  understands 
and  understands  not,  is  by  so  much  the  blinder  and  more  stupid. 
But  was  it  really  Jesus's  purpose,  that  the  people  should  be  in- 
durated ;  and  was  parabolical  language  the  means  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  purpose  (cf.  Mark  iv.  12  ;  Luke  viii.  10:  Iva 
pXiiTovTcq  1X7]  pXiiruicn)  ?  Here  we  must  observe  the  biblical 
teleology,  by  virtue  of  which  the  result  is  represented  as 
designetl  so  far  as  it  really  lies  in  the  ordering  of  God  that  evil 
be  punished  by  evil,  stupidity  by  stupidity  ;  nay,  that  what 
should  have  been  a  means  of  salvation,  must  serve  as  a  means 
Kom.  1.17  of  destruction.  Cf.  further,  Rom.  i.  17  with  Ilab.  ii.  4.  Paul 
li.  4l  '  has  said  in  the  prologue,  that  he  has  long  desired  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  believers  in  Rome  also,  forasmuch  as  it  is  a  power 
of  God  for  Jews  as  well  as  for  Gentiles,  and  this  is  grounded 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  171 

on  the  fact  that  in  the  gospel  is  revealed  the  righteousness 
proceeding  from  God  {Oeov  Genit.  auctoris,  cf.  iii.  25,  26),  i.e. 
that  in  the  gospel  it  is  shown  how  God  would  stand  to  men 
not  in  the  relation  of  anger,  but  in  the  relation  of  righteousness 
or  justice  (8tKatocrwr/  in  opposition  to  opyrj,  cf .  vs.  18)  ;  and  this 
proposition  is  now  fortified  by  the  passage  from  Habakkuk. 
Now,  to  be  sure,  in  this  passage  something  altogether  different 
from  the  Pauline  justification  through  faith  is  meant.  The 
connection  there  is  as  follows :  After  a  bitter  lamentation  over 
the  Chaldaean  oppression,  the  prophet  ascends  the  watch-tower 
in  order  to  receive  the  answer  of  Jehovah.  The  answer  comes, 
and  is  to  be  written  down,  since  the  fulfilment  must  still  be 
waited  for ;  it  attests,  on  the  one  hand,  the  truth  of  the  lamen- 
tation, i.e.  the  arrogance  of  the  Chaldaeans,  but  exhorts,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  steadfast  endurance  :  "  Behold,  his  soul  (i.e.  the 
soul  of  the  Chaldaean),  which  is  lifted  up,  is  not  upright  in 
him;  but  the  just  shall  live  through  his  faithfulness;"  since 
finally  —  and  he  who  faithfully  perseveres  shall  live  to  see  it^ 
the  deserved  punishment  shall  fall  upon  the  Chaldaeans.  Per- 
severing trust  in  Jehovah,  in  whom  is  life,  is  therefore  meant. 
But  Paul  speaks  of  the  TriVrt?  as  trust  in  the  salvation  revealed 
in  Christ.  With  the  prophet,  therefore,  the  trust  relates  to 
salvation  from  the  theocratic  distress  to  be  expected  only  in 
the  far  future  ;  with  Paul,  to  the  salvation  already  completed  in 
the  present,  from  the  condition  of  sin  and  wrath,  in  which  the 
whole  human  race  is  found.  A  further  question  is,  whether 
Paul  also  connected  Ik  TriaT&in'i  with  ^Tjo-erat.  The  LXX, 
according  to  whom  he  cites,  have  6  hUaio'^  Ik  Trla-Teui^  fxov 
l-qaerai,  because  they  probably  read  '^rr^^xn  instead  of  "irr^^xa . 
But  of  this  Paul  has  taken  no  account ;  either,  it  may  be, 
because  he  had  no  fxov  in  his  manuscript,  or  because  he  cited 
merely  from  memory.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the 
LXX  connected  the  €/c  Trto-rews  (fiov)  likewise  with  ^T^o-erai. 
But  whether  Paul  also  thus  connected  it  is  not  certain,  and  can 
be  ascertained  only  from  the  connection.  But  this  makes  it 
more  probable  that  the  Apostle  meant  to  say  :  He  that  is  jus- 


172  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

tified  by  faith  shall  live,  than :  The  just  shall  live  by  faith ; 
since  the  question  is  not  so  much,  whence  life  is  to  come  to  the 
just  man  as  whence  righteousness  is  to  come,  or  on  what  kind 
of  8iKato«»  life  is  promised  in  tlie  gospel.  But  however  differ- 
ent may  be  the  situation  and  the  local  sense  of  the  passage  in 
the  prophet  and  the  passage  in  Paul,  they  yet  agree  not  merely 
in  language,  but  also  in  the  fact,  that  they  speak  of  the  deliv- 
erance from  a  condition  of  evil  and  disgrace,  and  of  trust  as  a 
condition  of  this  deliverance ;  since  the  theocratic  deliverance 
appears  everywhere  as  a  type  of  the  Christian  salvation,  and 
the  trust  in  the  (future)  theocratic  salvation,  as  faith  in  the 
salvation  in  Christ,  is  a  steadfast  striving  after  the  ideal  state 
of  happiness  revealed  by  God. 

33.  Citations  that  treat  the  Old  Testament  arbitrarily. 

But  far  more  numerous  are  those  citations  which  treat  the 
Old  Testament  text  arbitrarily,  and  in  which  either  no  relation- 
ship, or  only  a  very  remote  one,  can  be  found  between  the 
thoufrht  of  the  New  Testament  writer  and  that  of  the  original 
Tiiree  passage.     We  distinguish  citations  in  which  the  agreement  is 

c  asses.  ^^^y  apparent  and  rests  on  the  mere  language  ;  citations  in 
which  agreement  is  attained  only  by  the  pressing  of  a  single 
word  contrary  to  the  sense  ;  and,  finally,  citations  in  which  the 
Old  Testament  passage  could  be  drawn  to  the  present  thought 
only  through  the  application  of  an  unlimited  allegorizing  and 
Citations  in  typologizing.  a)    Citations,  in   which   the    agreement  rests 

aVr'f^eint'ift  i^pon  the  mere  language.  One  of  the  most  familiar,  but  also 
vel^blh'^  i^ost  disputed  examples  is  Matt.  i.  23  coll.  Isa.  vii.  11}  This 
Matt  1.23    'Evanfrelist,  who  is  in  general  more  careful  than  any  other  to 

coll.Isa.vu.  ....  .  . 

14.  find  in  individual  circumstances  of  the  history  of  Jesus  the  ful- 

filment of  Old  Testament  words,  sees  fulfilled  in  the  birth  from 
the  virgin  the  prophetic  utterance  :  The  maiden  (young  woman, 
nrbrn)  shall  conceive  and  shall  bear  a  son  and  shall  call  his 
name  '*  God  with  us."     The  connection  in  Isaiah  is  as  follows : 

1  Sec  Fairhairn,  Hcrmcncutical  Manual,  456;  Phnvptre,  Biblical  Studies, 
45-5'2;  Meyer,  Conim.,  in  loco,  Matthew;  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (Am. 
ed.),  Art.  "  Imraanuel."  —  Ta. 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  173 

In  view  of  the  clanger  threatening  from  Syria,  Ahaz  receives 
the  promise  that  the  plan  of  the  hostile  power  shall  be  frus- 
trated ;  he  is  now  invited  to  ask  for  the  confirmation  of  the 
promise  a  sign,  and  Ahaz  declining  this  receives   the  reply : 
Jehovah  himself  shall  give  you  a  sign;   the  nisV?  shall  con- 
ceive, etc.     Now  mobs?  by  no  means  always  means  a  virgin 
(Trap^evos)  but  also  "  young  woman,"  for  the  most  part,  it  is 
true,  an  unmarried  person,  but  not  virgo  illibata  for  which  the 
Hebrew  has  the  word  nb^inn ;  JhtsIss  corresponds  rather  to  the 
Greek  vcai/tg,  as,  indeed,  Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Symmachus 
so  translate  the  word.     But  even  if  na^S  could  be  shown  to 
mean  Trcip^cvog,  it  is  clear  from  the  connection  that  the  passage 
is  not  at  all  Messianic  ;  since  the  birth  of  the  Immanuel  is  to 
be  only  a  sign  of  deliverance  in  the  immediate  future.     This  is 
the  simple  exegetical  relation  of  the  matter,  which  no  apologet- 
ical  elaboration  can  change.     Cf.  also  Matt.  ii.  15  coll.  Hos.  Matt^H.JS 
xi.  1.     Matthew,  the  only  Evangelist  who  recounts  the  legend  xi.i. 
of  the  flight  of  the  infant  Jesus  to  Egypt,  sees  in  his  return  the 
fulfilment  of  the  passage  referred  to  in  Hosea.     But  that  in 
this  passage  by  la  is    meant  not  the  Messiah  at  all,  but  the 
people  Israel,  must  be  clear  even  to  the  simplest  reader.    Hosea 
speaks  of  the  love  wherewith  Jehovah  has  drawn  the  people 
to  himself,  in  that  he  has  called  it  out  of  Egypt.     It  is,  there- 
fore, only  the  words  vio's  fxov  that  could  have  occasioned  the 
Evangelist  to  refer  the  passage  in  Hosea  to  Jesus.     But  would 
one  still  bring  out  and  maintain  the  unifying  idea  that  the  true 
Israel  has  appeared  in  Christ,  it  may  be  replied,  that  Israel  as 
the  son  of  God  and  its  calling  out  of  Egypt  is  mentioned  only 
with  a  view  to  show  forth  its  unfaithfulness  and  unthankfulness 
towards  God,  which  certainly  finds  not  the  shadow  of  an  ap- 
plication in  the  infant  Jesus.     Cf.  further,  Rom.  ix.  lo^coll.  Eom.^ix.15 
Ex.  xxxiii.  15  (LXX  eXerjo-o)  w  av  eXeS,  Kai  ot/crapTio-w  8r  av  xxxiii.  15. 
diKTeipio).     These  words  are  cited  by  Paul  in  confirmation  of 
his  assertion  that  God  always  proceeds  freely  in  the  bestowal 
of  his  grace.     The  emphasis  lies,  therefore,  with  him  on  6v,  and 
the  sense  is  :  I  have  mercy  only  on  whom  I  will  have  m^rcy. 
15* 


174 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 


Citations 
in  which 
einjjle 
words  are 
pressed. 

Gal.  iii.  16 
coll.  Gen. 
xxii.  18. 


Heb.xii.26, 
27  coll.  Hag. 
ii.  6f. 


But  the  original  passage  has  quite  a  different  sense  :  Moses 
has  besought  God  to  show  him  his  face  in  order  that  he  may 
know  that  God  is  gracious  to  him.  Jehovah  answers  him  :  No 
mortal,  indeed,  can  behold  his  face ;  but  to  him,  Moses,  he  will 
reveal  himself,  since  "  to  whom  I  am  gracious,  to  him  I  am 
gracious,"  etc.  The  emphasis  here  lies  evidently  not  on  the 
object,  but  on  the  predicates  cA.€>jo-w  and  oi/crciprjo-o)  and  the 
sense  is  :  "  To  whom  T  am  merciful  I  am  very  merciful."  p) 
Citations,  in  which  a  single  word  of  the  Old  Testament  passage 
is  so  pressed^  as  to  be  made  to  subserve  the  end  in  view.  In 
Gal.  iii.  16  Paul  urges  the  sing,  a-n-ipfia  (r'nl)  in  Gen.  xxii.  18, 
in  order  to  prove  that  the  word  aTripfxa  cannot  point  to  many 
but  to  one,  viz.  to  Christ.  But  a-Ttipixa,  as  is  well-known,  is  a 
collective,  and  even  if  it  may  refer  to  one,  it  can  never  do  so 
in  opposition  to  many,  and  the  singular  as  such  can  never 
have  this  argumentative  weight.  If  it  should  be  said  that  the 
o-Trep/Att,  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  has  reached  its  culmina- 
tion in  the  one  Christ,  this  is  a  dogmatic  reflection  on  the  word 
of  Genesis,  and  not  the  sense  of  the  passage  itself.  A  similar 
urging  of  a  single  expression  in  a  sense  far  remote  from  that 
of  the  original  passage,  is  found  in  Heb.  xii.  26,  27  coll.  Hag. 
ii.  6  f.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  presses  the 
airai  to  imi3ly  only  once,  and  thenceforth  no  more,  God  per- 
mitted a  changing  of  things  in  order  that  the  rest  may  remain. 
Pie  means  to  show,  that  is  to  say,  that  the  New  Testament 
kingdom  of  God  has  an  immovable  stability,  and  that  we 
should  be  so  much  the  more  careful  not  to  sin  against  it 
through  unbelief.  But  Ilaggai  speaks  of  something  quite  dif- 
ferent ;  the  Lord  declares,  namely,  to  Zerubabel  and  to  the 
high-priest  Joshua,  who  were  grieved  at  the  smallness  of  the 
new  temple;  after  a  little  while  (x'^Jn  vsjc  nnx  ^*ix)  he  will 
cause  a  general  shaking  of  the  world,  as  a  result  of  which  the 
foreign  j^eoples  shall  do  homage  to  the  God  of  Israel,  and  shall 
offer  to  the  temi)le  their  treasures,  which  properly  belong  to 
him.  The  ert  a7ra|^  is,  therefore,  an  incorrect  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  expression,  and  this  translation  has  been  used  by  the 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  175 


author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ilebrews  for  his  own  object.        y)  citations  ia 

Citations  in  which  an  unlimited  use  is  made  of  the  allegory  and  Tiieg^ry^® 

the  type.     Cf.  1  Cor.  x.  4  coll.  Ex.  xvii.  6.^     Paul  applies  the  r/jh.'^^ 

circumstance  that  the  Israelites  on  their  lourney  through  the  ^  ^^^-  x-  4 

., ,  T        ,  J  .7  &  coll.  Ex. 

wilderness    drank  water   from,  the   rock  allegorically  to  thexvU.  6. 

spiritual  drinking  of  the  people,  and  the  rock  to  the  spiritual 
rock  Christ,  who  accompanied  them  on  the  journey,  —  a 
strange  idea  which  has  not  the  slightest  ground  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament account,  but  finds  its  analogue  in  the  Chaldaean  para- 
phrast  Onkelos  (on  Ex.  I.e.),  and  against  whose  Rabbinic 
origin  Meyer  should  not  have  expressed  himself  with  so  much 
aversion.  A  piece  of  exegetically  weak  argument  and  arbi- 
trary allegorizing,  just  as  much  appealed  to  at  least,  and 
observed  already  by  Luther  and  Calvin,  is  Gal.  iv.  22  ff.^  coll.  Gai.iv.:  c 
Gen.  xxi.  2  ff.  Paul  applies  the  fact  that  Abraham  had  two  xxi.'2ff.  * 
sons,  the  one  born  of  a  free  woman,  the  other  of  a  slave,  alle- 
gorically to  the  two  covenants,  of  which  the  one  is  the  legal 
covenant,  concluded  on  Mount  Sinai,  the  other  t^e  covenant  of 
liberty  and  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem.  Here  not  only  is  the 
application  of  Ilagar  to  Mount  Sinai  and  the  connecting  of  the 
latter  with  the  earthly  Jerusalem  entirely  arbitrary,  but  also  • 
the  referring  of  Hagar  to  the  legal  covenant,  while  not  Hagar 
at  all,  but  Sarah,  is  the  mother  of  the  people  of  the  law.  Paul's 
fundamental  thought,  it  is  true,  lies  in  the  opposition  between 
the  servitude  under  the  law  and  the  freedom  of  the  state  of 
adoption,  vs.  23.  But  this  thought,  true  in  itself,  is  here  based 
upon  an  unexegetical  allegorizing  and  typologizing,  an  argu- 
ment convincing  for  the  Apostle,  and  perhaps  for  his  first 
readers,  but  for^us  proving  nothing  at  all.  Another  example 
is  1  Cor.  ix.  9  coll;  Deut.  xxv.  4.  There  is  not  the  least  doubt  l  Cor.  ix.  9 
but  that  the  direction  in  Deuteronomy,  ''  thou  shalt  not  muzzle  xxv".  4^"  * 
the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn,"  was  given  with  a  view 
to  promoting  humanity  towards  the  beasts.  And  who  at  the 
present  day  would  regard  this   thought  as  unworthy  of  the 

1  Cf.  Weiss,  Lchrbuch  d.  Bibl.  Theol.  d.  X.  T.,  270.  —  Tr. 

2  Cf.  the  Commentaries  of  Meyer  and  Lightfoot  in  loco.  —  Ts. 


176  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE  INTERPRETER^ 

Bible  ?  Kot  so  Paul ;  he  holds  it  unworthy  of  God  and  of 
the  Scriptures  that  he  should  have  given  a  command  relating 
to  oxen,  and  applies  the  passage  to  laborers  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  But  this  explanation  also  has  its  origin  and  finds  its 
analogy  in  the  Jewish  theology.  Thus  Philo  says  (De  Sacrif. 
p.  251)  :  ov  yap  virep  twv  aXoycov  6  vo/;t09,  aXA.'  vTrep  tC)V  vovv 
Eoflection  kol  Xoyov  e^wrcov.  These  are  all  human  elements  that  cleaved 
to  the  New  Testament  writers  as  sons  of  their  tim-e  and  of 
their  people,  and  to  close  the  eyes  against  which,  or  to  deny 
which,  is  only  a  matter  of  weak  faith  and  of  perverted 
conscience. 

34.   The  Allegory  and  the  Type. 

The  estimation  of  the  Old  Testament  passages  parallel  to 

the  New  Testament,  require  of  course  an  examination  of  each 

individual  citation,  but  also  an  insiirht  into  the  aground  and  the 

A  feeling  of  nature   of  the  allegory  and  the   type  in  general.     However 

truth  at  the  ,  ,  .  .  ^       n    .    .n-         i  i  •  -n    •      • 

b^tt'.mof    much  arbitrariness  and  triiimg  have    thus  crept  m,  still  it  is 

a^d^ll?*^^^  not  to  be  denied  that  a  feeling  of  truth  lies  at  the  bottom  of 

^*'^'  the  employment  of  the  allegory  and  the  type.^     This  truth  lies 

in  the  embodiment  of  the  idea,  which  is  at  first  veiled  and,  as 

it  were,  in  the  bud,  but  then  comes  to  the  light  unveiled  and  in 

full  bloom.     This  incarnation  of  the  idea  the  allegory  and  the 

Allegory      type  have  in  common  ;  they  differ  in  this,  that  the  allegory  is 

distin-         a  conscious  idea,  and  therefore  distinguishes  the  picture  from 

^"^  ^  *       the  thing,  whereas  the  type  is  the  idea  unconsciously  embodied 

in  a  person  or  fact ;  that  in  the  latter  the  distinction  of  time 

comes  into  consideration,  which  is  not  necessarily  the  case  with 

Lpgitimate  the  former.     But  how  are  we  to  distin^^uish  true  and  leiritimate 

and  arbi-         ,,  .   .  *" 

trary.  allegorizing  and  typologizing  from  the  false  or  arbitrary  ?  Here 

,  we  must  lay  down  a  general  principle,  and  this  can  be  no  other 

than  that  which  we  have  laid  down  for  distinguishing  true 

Gemiine       from  false  parallels  :  qenuine  alle<rories  are  such  only  as  fall 
allegories.  _  ,        ^  *^  ,,  •"'         7  . 

under   the  category  of  parallels   in   subject-matter ,  i.e.  which 

show  a  unity  of  idea  between  the  res  significans  and  the  res 

Bigiiificata.     When  Abraham   is  designated  as  a  type  of  the 

1  On  tbis  subject,  cf.  Fairhalrn,  Typology,  passim.— T-r. 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  177 

Christian  believer,  the  prophets  as  types  of  Christ,  —  when  the 
calling  of  Abraham  is  represented  as  a  prefiguration  of  the 
divine  calling  in  general,  the  deliverance  from  Egypt  as  a 
picture  of  redemption  through  Christ,  the  taking  possession  of 
the  land  of  Canaan  as  a  type  of  entrance  into  eternal  rest ; 
when  circumcision  is  represented  as  a  symbol  of  purification  of 
the  heart  (Deut.  x.  16  ;  xxx.  6  ;  Jer.  iv.  4 ;  Phil.  iii.  3),  the 
high-priesthood  as  a  prefiguration  of  Christ's  redeeming  work, 
and  the  Levitical  sacrifice  as  a  prefiguration  of  his  atoning 
death  ;  these  are  true  types  and  prefiguration  s.  We  must  also  Prophecy 
in  this  matter  draw  a  clear  line  between  prophecy  and  typology :  ogy  cUstin- 
Not  prophecy,  but  a  type  of  Christ  is  the  suffering  servant  of 
God  (Isa.  liii.)  ;  not  prophecy,  but  a  type  of  John  the  Baptist 
is  the  voice  of  the  crying  one  in  Isa.  xl.  3,  etc.  All  those  pre-  Spurious 
figurations,  on  the  other  hand,  are  spurious  and  arbitrary,  rest- 
ing on  no  unity  of  the  idea,  which  only  through  the  mere  lan- 
guage suggest  the  subject-mattei*,  or  have  merel}^  an  external 
resemblance  to  the  matter  itself.  The  employment  of  a  type 
may  also  be  unsuitable,  if  in  a  matter  which  is  in  a  certain 
respect  really  prefigurative,  a  feature  is  brought  forward  which 
is  not,  as,  e.g.  in  Noah's  Art,  the  water  of  the  deluge  as  a 
prefiguration  of  baptism  (1  Pet.  iii.  19),  in  the  water  from  the 
rock,  the  rock  itself  (1  Cor.  x.  4),  and  in  the  two  wives  of 
Abraham,  Ilagar  as  a  type  of  the  covenant  of  the  law  (Gal.  iv. 
24,25).     The  true  euide  in  iudoinof  of  a  proper  or  an  arbi- The connec- 

•        •         -1  .  7w         .>     7  ■    .  7     7         •       ,  tionthe 

trary  citation  is  the  connection  alike  of  the  citing  and  the  cited  true  guide. 
author.     Whether  in  general  a  parallel  passage  is  a  real  par- 
allel passage  can  only  be  ascertained  from  the  connection  on 
both  sides. 

35.   Cases  of  Extraordinary  Difficulty. 

These  two  elements,  the  connection  and  the  parallel  passages, 
are  the  most  important  aids  to  the  explanation.  But  how  if 
either  the  linguistic  usage  to  be  established  by  means  of  the 
parallels  is  not  constant  and  the  connection  not  clear,  or  if,  in- 
deed, each  in  itself  is  clear  and  indubitable,  but  the  two  are 
mutually  contradictory  ?     These  are  the  diflicult  cases,  where 


178         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

the  dissensions  of  the  exegetes  is  great,  and  the  result  a  non  liquet. 
Hermeneutics  would  show  its  impotence  if  it  were  unable  to 
Casps  in      g^^®?  ^^  least,  some  assistance  in  these  difficult  cases.     Let  us 
eua^e  and"  Consider  a)  cases  in  ichich  neither  the  Um/uistic  usage  is 

areobscure  ^^^^^^^^  ^^^^  ^^^^  connection  clear.  Cf.  first  of  all  the  vexed 
Kom.  V.  7.  passage,  Rom.  v.  7  :  yaoAt?  yap  vTrep  StKaiou  rts  aTroOavuTaiy 
virlp  yap  tov  aya6ov  ra^a  Tt?  ToXyoia  KaX  airoOav^lv.  Here  not 
only  the  connection  with  tlie  foregoing  is  difficult,  but  also  the 
relation  of  the  two  members  of  the  verse  to  each  other,  inasmuch 
as  they  seem  to  stand  in  a  contrast ;  but  in  this  case  we  should 
expect  not  yap  but  Se,  and  moreover  an  antithesis  of  SLKaLo<;  and 
dya06<5  is  something  altogether  unusual.  Let  us  seek  first  of 
all  to  clear  up  the  connection.  It  has  just  been  said,  that  Christ 
died  for  the  godless,  and  in  what  follows  the  love  of  God  is 
spoken  of  (vs.  8),  which  was  shown  in  the  death  of  Christ  for  us 
sinners.  The  intervening  verse  (vs.  7)  must  also  express  the 
thought,  that  dying  for  the  godless  is  something  altogether  ex- 
traordinary. If  now  we  examine  vs.  7,  we  shall  see  that  it  is 
introduced  by  yap  as  a. reason  for  the  preceding  thought,  and 
the  reason  indeed  consists,  first  of  all,  in  the  fact  that  a  man  not 
only  will  not  die  for  a  godless  person,  but  scarcely  even  for  a 
StWo?  {diroOavelTai,  future  of  ethical  possibility).  The  second 
member  is  introduced  by  yap  as  a  reason  for  the  first,  but  con- 
tains at  the  same  time,  as  it  seems,  an  antithesis  to  it,  which 
must  lie  in  dyaOov  (coll.  StKaCov).  Now  an  antithesis  may  of 
course  be  treated  as  a  reason  (namely,  as  argumentum  e  con- 
trario),  cf.  Rom.  iii.  G;  Gal.  iii.  10.  But  how,  now,  is  this 
antithesis  to  be  conceived  of  ?  It  must  have  its  ground  in  the 
words  SiKalov  and  dyaOov ;  but  this  can  be  the  case  only  if,  on 
the  one  hand,  SUaLos  is  here  employed  not  in  the  general  but 
in  the  special  sense,  and  dya06<;  here  means  not  as  usual, 
probus,  but  benignus.  Is  this  meaning  based  on  linguistic 
usage?  Yes;  cf.  1  Pet.  ii.  18;  Matt.  xx.  15.  The  sense  of 
the  passage  is,  therefore,  this  :  (''  Christ  died  for  the  godless  ; 
yet  how  extraordinary  this  is).  Since  for  a  just  man  —  one 
who  is  merely  upright  —  one  will  scarcely  die;  the  proof  for 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  179 

this  is,  that  for  a  good  man  (a  beneficent  man),  to  be  sure,  one 
would  easily  undertake  to  die."  Cf.  further,  the  extremely 
difficult  passage,  James  iv.  5  :  ^  y  SoKetre  on  Kevws  y)  ypac^r,  James  iv.  5. 
A€y€t  ITpo?  <li66i/ov  cTrtTTO^et  to  TTvex-fxa  6  KarcLK-qaev  Iv  rjfjuv  ; 
We  pass  over  for  the  present  the  difficult  rj  ypa^^  Ae'ya,  which 
cannot  be  explained  in  a  grammatical  way,  and  confine  our- 
selves merely  to  the  words  irpos  (f>66vov,  etc.  In  vs.  4  it  is 
said  :  Know  ye  not  that  the  friendship  of  the  world  is  enmity 
against  God  ?  and  this  is  now  confirmed  by  a  Scripture  proof 
which,  therefore  —  be  the  exact  sense  of  the  words  what  it  may- 
must  express  the  incompatibility  of  the  love  of  God  with  love  of 
the  world.  It  is  the  Trvevfxa  dwelling  in  them  that  is  the  proof  of 
this  incompatibility^  But  the  question  is,  whether  the  proposi- 
tion Trpos  cfiOovov  l~L-o6d  ...  is  declarative  or  interrogative ; 
and  this  again  depends  on  whether  the  words  are  intended  in 
the  good  sense  or  in  the  bad,  and  how,  more  precisely,  Trpos 
(jiOovov  is  to  be  explained  ?  The  connection  seems  to  require  a, 
meaning  for  cf>06vos  something  like  4^Xos  (J^Ji'p  Deut.  xxxii. 
16;  Ex.  XX.  5)  ;  but  cbOovo^  never  occurs  in  such  a  sense,  but 
always  in  malam  partem,  to  which  the  interrogative  conceptioa 
of  the  expression,  requiring  a  negative  answer,  corresponds. 
Strange  also  is  iTrnroOeLv  Trpos  . . . ,  which  verb  never  elsewhere 
occurs  thus,  but  is  always  construed  with  the  Accusative  or  with 
the  Infinitive  ;  7rp6?  cfyOovov  can,  therefore,  in  no  way  exi3ress  the 
object  of  l-L7ro6eiv ;  it  must  rather  be  employed  adverbially  as 
Trpo?  rjSovrjv  77po?  X^P'-^  (Joseph.  Ant.  XII.  x.  3),  Trpo?  opyrjv 
(Soph.  Elcctr.  369).  The  sense  is,  therefore,  this:  "Think 
ye  (who  greedily  strive  after  earthly  goods)  that  the  Scripture 
says  in  vain  ;  does  the  Spirit,  that  has  taken  up  his  abode  in 
you  desire  enviously,  i.e.  has  the  Spirit  of  God  envious  (worldly) 
lust  ?  "  Another  dark  pstssage  is  1  John  iii.  20  :  -  ...  eV  tovto)  j  john  uL 
yLViiiaKOfjiCv  on  Ik  irjs  aX.r)6eLa<;  iafXilv,  koL  ejjiTrpoaOcv  avrov  "  * 
7r€LaoiJ.€v  Ttt?  KapSias  y)fJL(i)V,  on  iav  KaTayLvtoo-Ky  y/xwv  y  KapSta.  on 
fJiCL^cov    iaTLv  6  6^0^  7y<i   KopStas  VjpiCi.v  Kat  yivojcTKet  iravTa.      The 

1  Cf.  Weiss,  Lehrb.  d.  Bibl.  Theol  d.  N.  T.,  1S8.  —  Tr. 

2  Cf.  Weiss,  G53 ;  Dusterdieck,  Euther,  and  I)e  Wette,  Comm.  in  loco.— Tb. 


180  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP   THE   INTERPRETER. 

connection  seems  to  require  something  consolatory,  and  yet  the 
words  run  as  if  the  meaning  were :  if  our  conscience  condemns 
us,  God  is  still  holier  and  more  omniscientj  and  knows  our 
shortcomings  and  transgressions  still  better.  Accordingly  the 
connection  already  is  in  so  far  not  clear,  as  it  may  he  a  matter  of 
dispute  whether  the  words  Kal  e/xvpoaOev  avrov,  etc.,  are  still  de- 
pendent on  on  or  not,  and  whether  Tret^w  here  means  to  con- 
vince  or  to  appease.  In  the  first  case,  the'  first  ort  in  vs.  20 
would  be  an  objective  particle ;  in  the  second  case,  a  causal 
particle,  unless  one  prefers  to  make  it  dependent  on  Iv  Tovno 
yLVioaKo/xev.  The  meaning  "  appease  "  for  Treidoi  is  rare  indeed, 
but  not  unheard  of,  cf.  Matt,  xxviii.  14  ;  Joseph.  Arch.  VI.  v.  6, 
and  seems  more  suitable  to  the  intention  (undoubtedly  consola- 
tory) of  the  entire  passage  and  especially  as  an  antithesis  to 
Karaytvojcr/cetv.  But  then,  on  account  of  the  repeated  otl  in  vs. 
20,  the  construction  is  doubtful ;  but  we  will  reasonably  disregard 
that  which  makes  Kal  ytmcrKet  iravra  the  apodosis,  since  by  reason 
of  the  antithesis  of  KapSia  v^/xcoi/  and  ^cos  the  emphasis  lies  on 
fx^L^wv ;  the  repeated  on  is  undoubtedly  rather  to  be  regarded  as 
an  emphatic  epanalepsis  of  the  first ;  hence  the  construction  is 
just  the  same  as  in  Gen.  xxii.  16,  17,  where  also  ^3  is  repeated 
after  an  intervening  sentence.  Finally,  we  are  to  answer  the 
principal  question,  how  ^.d^ow  is  to  be  understood.  The  language 
seems  really  to  point  to  this,  that,  if  our  conscience  condemn  us, 
God,  as  the  omniscietit  judge,  condemns  us  so  much  the  more. 
But  this  sense  is  not  at  all  compatible  with  vs.  19,  whether  we 
understand  Treta-ofiev  there  in  the  sense  "  to  convince "  or  "  to 
appease."  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  an  arbitrary  explan- 
ation, if  we  were  to  refer  fxel^wv  merely  to  God's  forgiving  love, 
which  v,ould  be  altogether  incommensurate  with  the  k.  yivio- 
a-K€L  -avTa.  Rather  must  fxet^wv  relate  to  the  fact  that  —  while 
our  heart  takes  cognizance  only  of  single  states  (the  present) 
—  God  is  acquainted  with  our  whole  being,  not  only  with  tliat 
for  v/hich  our  conscience  reproaches  us,  but  also  of  our  inmost 
(better)  willing.  When,  then,  it  is  said  further  in  vs.  21  :  ''If 
our  heart  condemn  us  notj  we  have  a  joyful  assurance  before 


PARALLEL  PASSAGES.  181 

God,"  —  this  forms  no  antithesis  to  what  precedes,  hut  only  a 
climax  ;  first  an  appeasing  and  then  a  joyful  assurance  of  the 
conscience  is  spoken  of.  In  cases  of  such  obscurity  alike  of  the 
connection  and  of  the  meaning  of  an  expression  we  are  to  pro- 
ceed 1)  from  the  clearer  :  if  the  connection  is  clearer,  from  SHmmaryof 
the  connection  ;  if  the  verbal  meaning  is  clearer,  from  the  verbal 
meaning  ;  2)  In  the  former  case  the  disputed  rendering  is 
to  be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  best  possible  confirmation  of 
the  connection  and  the  construction,  —  in  the  latter  case  the 
connection  is  to  be  examined  in  the  light  of  the  confirmation  of 
the  linguistic  usage  through  parallel  passages. 

36.   Conflicting   Results. 

But  what  if  regard  to  the  linguistic  usage  and  regard  to  the 
connection  give  different  results  ?  Something  of  this  sort  has 
been  exhibited  in  the  last  examples  ;  but  for  tlie  further  eluci- 
dation of  the  task  and  its  performance  we  will  present  some 
other  examples.  Cf.  1  Cor.  vii.  16:  ri  yap  ol^a?,  yvvai,  et  rovlCor.  vii. 
avSpa  o-wo-et9  ;  ^  ri  otSa?,  avcp,  el  rrjv  yvvoLKa  crtoo-cts  ;  Paul  had 
just  before  said  that  in  mixed  marriages  the  maintenance  or 
the  solution  of  the  marriage-bond  should  be  left  to  the  free 
choice  of  the  parties,  and  that  there  should  be  no  compulsion 
in  the  matter.  Now  an  encouragement  to  remaining  and  the 
question,  "  what  knowest  thou,  if  thou  wilt  7wt  win  the  com- 
panion to  Christ,"  would  seem  to  be  in  place.  But  the  lan- 
guage here,  now,  is  clearly  for  the  opposite,  and  Paul  means 
rather  to  work  against  a  compulsory  remaining  in  such  a  mar- 
riage, and  this  by  calling  attention  to  the  improbability,  that  in 
such  a  case  the  other  party  would  be  won  to  the  gospel.  Cf. 
also  Gal.  vi.  8  :  ...  6  cnreipwv  eh  rr/v  adpKa  iavrov  e/<  rrj?  q^^  ^j  g. 
crapKO?  OepLaei  cfiOcpdv,  6  Se  cnrupoiV  eh  to  Trveifxa  eK  tov  Trvevixa- 
ro^  ^cw  aluiVLGv.  According  to  the  language  the  first  member 
of  the  verse  seems  to  speak  of  carnal  sins  and  their  results, 
since  what  else  can  aTreipeiv  eh  ttjv  crdpKa  mean  ?  But  the  con- 
nection leads  to  something  altogether  different ;  in  vs.  6  the 
Apostle  had,  namely,  exhorted  to  liberality  towards  teachers, 
and'  that  he  has  not  abandoned  this  thought,  vs.  9  and  10  are  a 

Id 


182         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  TUE   INTERPRETER. 

proof,  where  again  the  exhortation  is  to  well-doing.  Now  it 
miglit  be  objected  that  the  expressions  cnretpeLv  and  O^pt'Ceiv  are 
also  elsewhere  used  of  well-doing,  2  Cor.  ix.  6.  But  o-n-upiiv 
CIS  ryjv  aapKa  cannot  possibly  be  referred  merely  to  well-doing. 
How  are  we  to  resolve  the  opposition  between  the  require- 
ment of  the  verbal  sense  and  the  requirement  of  the  connec- 
tion ?  Evidently  in  the  Apostle's  mind  lies  liberality  first 
towards  teachers,  then  in  general,  but  the  figure  a-rreipeLv  and 
OepL^iLv  is  used  as  well  of  charitableness  as  of  course  of  conduct 
and  its  results  in  general.  But  that  the  thought  about  benefi- 
cence and  its  counterpart  has  not  been  entirely  dropped  is  clear 
from  adpKa  eavTov,  which  has  reference  to  selfish  interests,  as 
well  as  from  vs.  9  and  10.  The  sense  is  accordingly  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Let  him  that  is  being  instructed  sliare  with  his  teachers 
.  .  .  (and  not  shut  himself  up  in  selfish  interests  against  them)  ; 
since  in  general  God  is  not  mocked  with  impunity  .  .  .  for  he 
that  thinks  only  of  his  own  interests  and  welfare,  will  receive 
as  the  fruit  thereof,  corruption,  —  and  he  that  is  devoted  to 
spiritual  interests  (to  which  belong  thankfulness  towaiils  teachers 
and  beneficence  in  general)  "will  receive  as  tlie  fruit  thereof, 
eternal    life.      By   this    thought   alone   is    the   recurrence   to 

Obscurity    bencficence  explicable.     The  particles  also,  especially  preposi- 

of  particles,  tions  and  conjunctions,  make  difficulties  now  and  then,  since  the 
sense  seems  to  demand  a  different  one  from  that  actually  em- 
ployed, and  this  comes  in  apparent  conflict  with  the  linguistic 

John  vi.  57.  usage.  Cf.  John  vi.  57,  where  the  words  ^co  Sia  t6v  rrarepa 
seem  unsuitable,  and  either  8ta  with  the  Genitive  or  Ik  seems, 
on  the  contrary,  rather  to  be  required ;  since  Jesus  means  yet  to 
designate  the  Father  as  his  own  source  of  life,  while  8ia  with  the 
Accusative  merely  points  out  the  causal  ground  which  does  not 
correspond  with  tlje  intention  of  the  discourse.  But  Std  with  the 
Accusative  points  out  not  only  the  causal,  but  also  now  and  then 

Rom.  viii.    the  effectual  m-ouiid,  cf.  Rom.  viii.  11,  where  (at  least  accordinsf 

11.  O  '  V  o 

to  Codd.  DEF,  and  most  other  uncials,  also  several  ancient  ver- 
sions and  many  patristic  citations)  Sia  to  ivoiKovv  Iv  vp.Lv  Tri/eiyxa 
stands  apparently  for  Sta  toO  €^oikowtos  .  .  .  Tr^cu/xarcfs  (which, 


EXTERNAL  HELPS  TO  THE  EXPLANATION.     183 

indeed,  Codd.  ABC  and  others  have).  That  ydp  is  often  put 
for  Se,  and  vice  versa,  is  well-known,  and  (to  say  nothing  of  the 
variations  of  the  Codd.),  is  explicable  from  tha  fact  that  it 
often  lies  in  the  choice  of  an  author,  whether  he  will  express  a 
thought  as  the  ground  of  what  precedes,  or  only  simply  join  it 
by  means  of  the  transitional  8e.  So  also  there  are  cases,  where 
an  antithetical  thought  properly  to  be  introduced  by  Se  is  intro- 
duced by  ydp  as  an  argumentum  e  contrario,  see,  e.g.  Rom.  v.  7.Koin.  v.  7. 
Where,  therefore,  the  linguistic  usage  and  the  connection  seem 
to  come  into  conflict  with  each  other  the  following  rules,  deduc- 
ible  from  the  illustrative  examples,  are  to  be  observed :  1) 

Whether  the  connection  or  the  linguistic  usa^e  is  to  prevail,  can- Summaryof 

.      .  principles. 

not  be  determined  on  general  principles  or  bef orehand^  but  must 
be  determined  in  each  particular  case.  2)  Is  the  connection 
clearer  than  the  verbal  meaning  —  the  connection  is  to  deter- 
mine the  interpretation  ;  but  is  the  linguistic  usage  and  the 
verbal  sense  more  certain  —  then  this  is  to  decide.  3)  Yet 
in  the  former  case  the  doubtful  linguistic  usage  is  to  be  consid- 
ered as  much  as  possible  in  the  light  of  closer  or  more  remote 
parallel  passages  —  and  in  the  latter  case  the  connection  also  is 
yet  to  be  attended  to.  4)  An  explanation  is,  then,  first  to  be 
regarded  as  assured,  when  it  is  confirmed  as  well  through  the 
connection  as  through  suitable  parallels. 

h)  External  Helps  to  the  Explanation. 

37.   Traditional    Kelps. 

We  have  with  reason  treated  first  the  internal  helps,  i.e  such 
as  are  found  in  Scripture  itself,  for  it  may  be  laid  down  as  an 
axiom  of  interpretation,  that  ere?'?/  author  is,Jirst  of  all,  to  he 
explained  hy  himself ;  and  it  is  only  the  simple  consequence  of 
this  axiom  if  the  Protestant  theology  has  postulated  the  prin- 
ciple, Scriptiira  Scripturae  interpres.  This  cannot,  of  course,  gcViptnra 
mean  that  Scripture  —  this  object  of  the  explanation  —  is  also  4^^^^^)].^"*' 
in  the  proper  sense  the  subject  of  the  explanation  ;  but  only 
this,  that  the  most  essential  means  of  the  explanation  are  to  be 
drawn  from  Scrioture  itself.     This,  however,  presupposes  ex- 


184         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 


Contro- 
versy of 
CatlioHc 
and  Tro- 
testant 
exegetes. 


Catholic 
claims. 


Protestant 
replied. 


haustive  linguistic  knowledge.  In  the  absence  of  this,  recourse 
is  naturally  had,  more  than  to  anything  else,  to  external,  espe- 
cially to  traditional  helps.  Language  is,  indeed,  in  general  a 
traditional  possession,  and  the  knowledge  of  it  is  chiefly  to  be 
derived  from  such  vouchers  as  stood  in  the  tradition  itself,  as 
the  ancient  Greek  interpreters  and  the  ancient  lexicographers. 
From  these,  indeed,  modern  interpreters  have  been  obliged  also 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent  to  draw.  The  controversy  between 
Catholic  and  Protestant  exegetes  moves  rather  about  the  ques- 
tion, whether  witli  regard  to  the  sense  also.  Scripture  is  to  be 
explained  according  to  tradition  or  not  ?  In  favor  of  the  tradi- 
tional interpretation  it  is  argued,  1)  that  the  spirit  from  which 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  emanated,  was  propagated 
in  the  church,  and  that  therefore  the  church  as  the  possessor  of 
this  spirit,  possesses  the  key  to  the  understanding  of  Scripture, 
and  2)  that  if  ecclesiastical  tradition,  this  given  medium  of  in- 
terpretation, is  rejected,  reliance  is  put  upon  the  mere  subjec- 
tive judgment  of  the  interpreter.  We  may  reply,  ad  1)  The 
spirit  of  the  Apostles  and  their  disciples  was,  it  is  true,  propa- 
gated in  the  church,  but  by  no  means  to  all  times,  for  the 
degeneration  and  the  partial  disappearance  of  this  spirit  in  the 
later  centuries  is  a  recognized  fact ;  that  it  was  not  propagated 
in  full  measure  is  clear  from  the  abatement  and  the  partial 
alteration  of  the  primitive  Christian  spirit  already  in  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers  and  in  the  oldest  Church  Fathers,  as  Irenaeus, 
Clement,  Tertullian,  etc.  But  even  granting  that  in  general 
the  spirit  of  the  Apostolic  men  and  the  understanding  of  their 
writings  have  been  preserved  in  the  church,  yet  it  is  by  no 
means  to  be  proved  that  this  understanding  has  been  propagated 
in  reference  to  particulars  ;  and  yet  the  Catholic  view  would 
come  to  this.  But  that  a  certain  traditional  understanding  of 
Scripture  is  to  be  derived  from  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  espe- 
cially from  the  Greek  interpreters,  among  wliom  Chrysostom 
and  his  followers  are  especially  to  be  mentioned,  Protestant  exe- 
gesis has  never  denied.  The  Conf.  Ilelv.  II.  c.  2  says  :  Proinde 
non  aspernamur  sanctorum  Patrum  Graecorum  Latinorumquo 


GENERAL  HELPS.  185 

interpretationes,  neque  reprobamus  eorunclem  disputationes  ac 
tractationes  rerum  sacrarum  cum  Scriptiiris  consentientes  :  a 
quibiis  tamen  recedimus  modeste,  qiiando  alieca  a  Scripturis 
aut  his  contraria  adferre  deprehenduntur."  Ad  2)  That  for  the 
interpreter  who  does  not  hold  himself  to  tradition,  only  sub- 
jectivism of  exegetical  judgment  is  left^is  to  be  denied  outright, 
for  the  reason  that  the  internal  helps,  —  the  connection  and  the 
parallel  passages,  —  to  which  we  have  given  the  precedence  as 
the  most  essential, —  are  just  as  substantial  and  objective  as  eccle- 
siastical tradition,  and  if  in  a  thousand  cases  the  exegete  is  still 
thrown  back  on  his  own  judgment,  the  same,  indeed,  is  true 
also  of  the  traditional  exegete  in  all  those  cases  in  which  exe- 
getical tradition  is  discordant,  or  where  it  leaves  him  in  the 
lurch.  With  the  general  traditional  helps  —  dictionaries,  gram- 
matical treatises,  etc.  —  only  he  must,  therefore,  begin,  to  whom 
the  necessary  preparatory  knowledge  for  the  interpretation  of 
the  New  Testament  are  wanting ;  and  it  is  self-evident  that  the 
acquisition  of  this  preparatory  knowledge  must  precede  all 
consultation  of  the  internal  media  of  interpretation.  But  of 
this  we  need  not  here  speak,  but  only  of  the  operations  belong- 
ing to  exegesis  itself  ;  and  it  is  by  no  means  to  be  denied  that 
after  the  application  of  the  internal  helps  the  external  also 
must  come  into  consideration.  These  are  partly  general,  which 
relate  to  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  in  general,  and 
partly  special,  which  have  for  their  object  the  explanation  of 
details  (commentaries). 

a)    General  Helfs. 
38.   Later  Creek  Authors,  Grammarians,  Lexicographers,  etc. 

The  linguistic  knowledge  v.hich  one  brings  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  liis  author,  resp.  of  the  New  Testament,  is  never  so 
perfect  as  not  to  need  in  this  or  that  regard  enriching  and  con- 
firmation. The  more  inexperienced  the  ^^Qg<^ie^  is,  the  more 
is  this  the  case.  Such  enriching  and  confirmation  is  chiefly  to  be 
derived  from  the  later  Greek  authors  —  a  Polybius,  a  Dionysius  LatprGreek 
Ilalic,  a  Diodorus'Siculus,  a  Dio  Cassius,  an  Arrian,  a  Ilerodian,  ^"'^*^'"'** 
16* 


186  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER; 

Jewish  a  Plutarch,  an  Aclian  ;  and  especially  the  Jewish  authors,  who 
authors.  wrote  in  Greek  —  Josephus,  Philo,  the  Old  Testament  Apocry- 
pha and  Pseudepigraphs.  Yet  the  Nev/  Testament  writers 
have  drawn  iheir  Greek  in  part  from  the  Alexandrine  version 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Partly  on  this  account  and  partly  because 
the  native  language  of  most  of  the  New  Testament  authors 
Importance  was  Hebrew,  or  rather  Aramaic,  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  as 
edjre  of  He-  it  is  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  is  indispensable.  The 
more  the  given  New  Testament  author  Hebraizes,  the  more 
necessary  is  this  knowledge.  In  particular  are  those  more 
recent  works  of  essential  use,  which  treat  of  the  peculiarities 
of  the  Greek  language,  and  especially  of  the  New  Testament 
Greek :  the  New  Testament  Grammars  of  Winer  and  Alex. 
Buttmann  (editions  as  referred  to  above)  ;  ''  Vigeri  de  praeci- 
puis  Graceae  dictionis  idiotismis  1.  ad  G. /Tcrw,"  ed.  4,  1834; 
Phrynichi  eclogae,ed.  Lohech,  1820  ;  Devaril  liber  de  Graecae 
linguae  particulis,  ed.  Reinh.  Klotz,  2  vols.  1835-1842;  finally 
the  more  recent  dictionaries  of  the  New  Testament  by  Bret- 
Schneider,  Wahl,  and  pre-eminently  Wilib.  Grimm,  Lexicon 
Graeco-Latinum  in  Libros  N.  Testamenti,^  18C8.  For  the 
Hebrew  language  the  helps  are  well-known  ;  the  larger  and 
smaller  Grammars  of  Gesenius  and  Ewald,  Gesenii  Thesaurus 
philol.-criticus  linguae  Ilebraeae  et  Chaldaeae  [completed  by 
Eodiger],  1829-1858,  and  the  smaller  Hebrew  and  Chaldee 
Dictionary  that  has  appeared  in  various  editions  [the  m.ore 
recent  works  of  Fiirst,  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  while  they 
arc  exceedingly  learned,  are  yet  so  full  of  wild  theorizing  that 
they  can  scarcely  be  reckoned  as  of  high  authority,  though  thus 
reckoned  by  many.  Girdlestone's  "  Synonyms  of  the  Old 
Testament"  is  a  work  well  worthy  of  consultation,  though 
perhaps  too  much  influenced  by  the  theological  views  of  the 
author]. 

1  This  work,  which  is  of  rare  merit,  has  been  translated  by  Prof.  Thayer, 
and  v.'ill,  it  is  hoped,  soon  be  published,  by  Jlr.  W.  F.  Draper.  Andover. 
Jiobinson's  N  T.  Lexicon,  Avhich  has  been  extensively  used  in  this  country, 
has  its  value,  but  unless  revised  soon  by  an  able  hand,  it  is  likely  to  be 
superseded.  —  Tk. 


SPECIAL   HELPS.  187 

39.    Time  and  Order  in  the  Use  of  Helps. 

The  use  of  these  helps  is  various  :  some,  as  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  authors,  are  not,  as  a  rule,  to  be  applied  then  first, 
when  needed  for  the  explanation  of  the  New  Testament,  since 
such  an  employment  would  amount  to  nothing.  They  are 
rather  to  be  used  previously  and  independently  of  the  reading 
of  the  New  Testament.     Of  course  the  reading  of  the  whole  The  reading 

*^  of  the  whole 

mass  of  the  literature  under  consideration  is  not  to  be  thought  mass  o*"  iit> 

cratiire  re- 

of ;  but  even  he  who  has  read  onlv  some  one  of  the  authors  ferred  tt  im- 

".  .  practicable. 

referred  to,  has  laid  a  good  foundation  for  the  explanation  of 
the  New  Testament.  Moreover,  the  collections  of  Baphelius^ 
Kypke,  Krehs.maj  still  always  be  used  with  profit  —  the  more 
profit,  the  more  notices  one  has  himself  collected  from  these 
Greek  authors.  Other  helps,  as  Hermann  ad.  Vig.,  Lobeck 
ad  Phryn.,  Klotz  ad  Devar.,  and  especially  the  grammars 
and  dictionaries,  are  applied  in  behalf  of  the  reading  and  the 
interpretation   itself.     If    the    beginner   is    still   in  great  part  importance 

'■  ®    ,  .     ,  .     .    ot  becom- 

dependent  on  these  helps,  and  especially  on  the  dictionary,  it  is  ing  inde- 
his  duty  the  longer  he  works  the  jnore  independent  to  make  lexicons, 
himself,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  attain  to  a  self-dependent 
judgment.  To  this  end  there  is  no  other  means  than  to  dig 
out  and  examine  the  passages  in  question.  The  expenditure 
of  time  which  this  requires  is  richly  rewarded  by  the  personal 
insight  which  is  thus  gained  ;  this  is  of  far  more  value  than 
mere  memory  knowledge  of  words,  and  the  more  rapid  progress 
otherwise,  certainly,  attainable.^ 

P)   Special  Helps. 

40.    Ancient  and  Modern  Commentaries. 

What  are  meant  hereby  are  chiefly  the  Commentaries,  and, 
indeed,  pre-eminently  those  that  are  of  importance  in  a  philo- 
logical relation.  Very,  worthy  of  consideration,  however,  are  Ancient 
already  the  ancient  Greek  interpreters,  especially  Chrysostom,  t^rpreters. 
Theodoret,  and  Theophylact,  for  whom  the  original  language  of 
the  New  Testament  was  still  a  living  language.  In  these  in- 
A  Oh,  that  this  thought  might  take  firm  hold  on  American  students !  — Te. 


188  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPE^ETER. 

terpreters   also,  earliest  of  all,  may  an  exegetical  tradition  be 

Ancient       spoken  of.     The  ancient  versions  also,  as  far  as  their  language 
versions.       /  .-,  i  ,  .  .  -,  •  •   n 

is  accessible  to  the  exegete,  come  mto  consideration,  especially 

Exegetes  of  for  the  more  difficult  passaws.     Furthermore,  the  better  exe- 
the  Kefor-  . 

mation        getes  of  the  Reformation  period,  especially  Luther,  Zwingle, 
Calvin,  W.  IMusculus,  Bened.  Aretius,  Theod.  Beza,  are  still 
always  of  importance.     The  most  distinguished  exegete  of  the 
Calvin,        Reformation  epoch,  however,  is  Calvin.     While  we  grant  that 
he  dogmatizes  too  much,  and  sometimes  in  the  wrong  place ; 
that   he   dissects    rather    than    explains    the    thoughts  of    the 
author ;  but,  above  all,  that  neither  sufficient  critical  helps  to  the 
restoration  of  the  pure  text  nor  an  exhaustive  knowledge  of 
the  original  languages  were  yet  at  his  command  ;  yet  his  exe- 
getical impartiality  and  soberness,  his  gift  for  discovering,  as  if 
by  divination,  the  connection,  his  exegetical  tact,  are  very  remark- 
Exegetes  of  able  for  his  time,  and  useful  even  for  us.     Then,  of  the  time  of 
matic"^"      the  dominance  of  dogmatism  those  interpreters  are  to  be  used 
peno  .        y^\[\-^  profit  who  emancipated  themselves  from  dogmatism,  as 
Hugo  Grotius,  Clericus,  and,  in   general,  the    interpreters  of 
•  the  latter   part  of   the  seventeenth  century,  classed   together 
under  the  name  "  Critici  Sacri."     In   the  eighteenth  century 
Bengel.       J*  ^-  I^engel  ranks  foremost  through  his  immediate  religious 
understanding  of  the  sense,  and  his  often  remarkably  excellent 
and  concise  expression  of  the  same  :  only  one  must  not  allow 
himself  to  be  misled  by  Bengel's  seeking  and  finding  of  em- 
phases.    Bengel  is  more  excellent  in  the  setting  forth  of  the 
sense  of  single  words  and  clauses  than  in  the  explanation  of  the 
Exogetes  of  connection.     From  the  early  years  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
ypar^onhe  ^^  mention  especially  G.  Ch.  Knapp  with  his  Scriptis  Varii 
ceutmy"''*  Argumentl,  and  the  exegetical  treatises  in  Fritzschiorum  Opus- 
culis,  but  in  general  FrltzscJie^s  Commentaries   on   Mark,  on 
single  passages  of  2  Corinthians,  and  on  Romans.     Exegetical 
treatises  on  single  difficult  passages  are  given  in  the  "•  Theol. 
Recpnt        Studien   und   Kritiken."     The   most   noted   exegetes   of  more 
exegetes.     recent  times  are,  F.  Luche,  F.  BleeJc,  M.  L.  De  Wctte,  IT.  A.  W, 
Meyer,  and  his  continuators,  Luucmaiin,  Iluthcr,  and  Duster- 


SPECIAL   HELPS.  189 

dieck.    (Cf.  in  general  the  History  of  Scripture  Interpretation, 
§§  31-34). 

4],   Familiarity  with  the  Characteristics  cf  Commentators. 

In  order  to  avail  one's  self  of  the  exegetical  helps  to  advantage 

an  acquaintance  with  these  helps  is  indispensable,  and,  indeed, 

with   the  peculiar  merits  and  defects  of  those  better  known 

among  them;     One  must  know,  in  general,  for  what  questions  Pecuiiari- 
1  •  1  -1  1     1     .  1  •■■     ,  -,      *>^*  of  some 

this  or  that  commentary  is  to  be  consulted  with  the*  best  results,  commou- 

Olshausen's  Commentary,  e.g.  which  in  fact  contains  much  that 
is  excellent,  may  be  pre-eminently  Congenial  to  one  ;  but  should 
he  suppose  that  he  has  in  it  a  sure  guide  for  a  purely  philo- 
logical question,  he  would  be  often  disappointed.  Or  suppose 
that  one  has  become  especially  attached  to  the  commentaries  of 
Fritzsche  on  account  of  their  philological  value  ;  should  he 
now  seek  in  him  information  about  the  true  sense  of  a  passage 
in  Matthew  he  would  for  the  most  part  find  himself  at  a  loss. 
That  the  exegetes  of  the  sixteenth  century  are  not  to  be 
depended  upon  with  reference  to  a  difficult  word,  as  a  a-n-a^ 
Xeyo/xei/ov,  is  self-evident.  One  must,  in  general,  guard  against  orthodox 
letting  his  religious  and  ecclesiastical  position  exert  a  determin-  taricT  not 
ing  influence  in  the  choice  of  exegetical  helps,  or  preferring  or  fh^moJt^"*' 
rejecting  a  commentary  principally  according  to  the  theological  '^^^^"^• 
position  of  its  author,  as  if  "  orthodoxy  "  (Glaiibigkeit)  were  a 
guaranty  for  the  correct  explanation  of  a  participial  clause,  or 
"  free-thinking "  a  warranty  for  the  correct  conception  of  a 
Lva  or  for  the  best  explanation  of  a  avra^  Xeyo^ievov.  Only  the 
tyro  in  exegesis  can  suppose  that  we  are  met  at  every  step  and 
turn  by  a  vital  religious  question,  where  the  theological  ten- 
dency of .  the  author  must  decide.  How  little  this  is  the 
case  two  facts,  by  way  of  examjDles,  may  serve  to  prove, 
that  1)  the  Rationalist,  Paulus,  and  the  firm  believer  in  Examples, 
revelation,  Olshausen,  agree  in  the  explanation  of  not  a  few 
passages,  and  2)  that  Fritzsche,  who  yet  is  regarded  as  a 
Kationalist,  in  his  Commentary  on  Eomans  is  led  simply  by 
means  of  his  philological  conscientiousness  and  thoroughness  to 
the   correct  explanation  —  to  an  explanation  which  even  the 


190         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 

"orthodox"  (glaiibig)  interpreters  must  accept.  Not  the 
theologico-ecclesiastical  "  direction,"  but  exegetical  tliorough- 
ness  and  conscientiousness  should  determine  the  value  of  a 
commentary.  But  even  if  an  exegete  has  been  found  to  be 
trustworthy  and  excellent,  one  must  not  yield  himself  uncon- 
ditionally to  his  authority  and  swear  by  his  words,  but  must 
TheexoETPte  alwaj^s  keep  his  eyes  open.  The  indispensable  condition  here  is, 
study  the     as  has   been    already  observed   (§§  25-36),  that    the   exegete 

indepen-      jirst  study  the  author  hi  himself,  without  commentaries,  and 
deutly,  etc.         .  ,  .  ,.    ,  .  , 

Strive  to  become  conscious  oj  the  questions  that  are  to  be  put 

to  his  exegetical  helps.  Only  in  this  way  will  a  man  be  truly 
profited  by  commentaries,  and  only  in  this  way  does  the  exe- 
getical judgment  remain  clear  and  uncorrupted. 

C.    The  Exegetical  Judgment. 

42.    Importance  of  an  Accurate  Method. 

In  order  to  arrive  at  a  judgment  as  sure  and  well-gi'ounded 
as  possible,  it  is  essential  that  we  follow  a  correct  and  accurate 
method.     This   is  of  special  imjiortance  in  difficult  passages. 
PrpcedPTice  And,  indeed,  we  must  here  repeat  with  emphasis  that,  after  the 
maticai  ox-  determmation  of  the  text,  the  grammatical  explanation  must 
have  the  precedence  of  all  real-explanation,  and  of  all  theologi- 
cal explanation.    We  could  adduce  examples  where  the  circum- 
stance that  this  rule  has  not  been  observed  has  hindered  the 
correct  and  assured  exegetical  result ;  but  we  prefer  to  show 
positively  by  some  examples,  how  the  following  of  a  correct 
exegetical  method  renders  jDOSsible  a  sure  exegetical  judgment. 
This  may  be  best  illustrated  by  difficult  constructions.     Cf. 
Rom.  V.  12  H}     We  have  here  a  protasis  intJ-oduced  by  uicnrcp. 
12  ff.  Where  is  the  apodosis  ?     It  is  clear,  that  —  if,  indeed,  we  do 

not  find  it  in  vs.  12  —  it  cannot  follow  in  the  verses  imme- 
diately succeeding,  for  there  must  be  a  ovrw?  to  correspond  to 
the  wo-Trep.  But  a  ourws  follows  in  vs.  15,  and  again  in  vs.  18, 
yet  not  without  a  new  protasis  with  oj?.  Accordingly,  if  Vv'e  say 
provisionally  that  vs.  15  is  the  souglit-for  apodosis,  we  have  in 

1  Cf.  PhiUpjn,  Meyer,  Ilodge,  Lange(Scho,&'scd.),  Comm.  iu  loco.— Te. 


THE   EXEGETICAL  JUDGMENT.  191 

vs.  13,  14  a  parenthetical  interposition,  and  — as  introduction 
to  the  apodosis  —  a  protasis,  similar  to  vs.  12,  which  could 
then  be  regarded  only  as  a  resumption.  How  can  we  now 
determine  whether  the  words  in  vs.  15,  ovra>9  kuI  to  xapur/xa  are 
really  the  apodosis  sought  for  or  not  ?  Answer  :  By  proving 
whether  the  supposed  resumption,  dAA'  o^x  ^^  -rb  TrapdTrroyfj^, 
logically  corresponds  to  vs.  12,  as  well  as  whether  the  supposed 
apodosis  in  vs.  15  logically  corresponds  to  the  thought  which 

we  must  really  expect  after  (So-Trcp da^XOev,  etc.  (Tn  vs.  12). 

This  test  gives  a  negative  result,  since  the  resumption  does  not 
correspond  to  what  is  to  be  resumed,  and  just  as  little  does  the 
apodosis  correspond  to  that  expected  ;  for  this,  to  correspond 
with  the  protasis  in  vs.  12,  could   only  run  thus;  "So  also 
through  one  man,  Christ,  justification  and  life  have  come  into 
the  world."    Verse  18  seems  more  suitable  as  an  apodosis,  since 
here  in  fact  the  protasis  conceived  as  a  resumption,  <Ss  St'  Ivh^ 
TTttpaTTTw/^aro?  et?  iravra^  dvOpu)7rovs  els  KaraKpi/za,  corresponds 
ah-eady  to  ^the  protasis  in  vs.  12,  as  well  as  also  the  words 
ovTQis  Kai  hC  eVos  SiKttto^/xaros  cis  iravra^  avOpwirovs  ds  SuKatwaLV 
t<o^s  to  the  expected  apodosis.     To  this  is  to  be  added  the  fact 
that  the  apa  ovv  seems  to  introduce  a  real  resumption  and  con- 
clusion.    Yet  the  long  interruption  may  awaken  doubt,  and  the 
sense  of  vs.  18  diverges  from  that  demanded  by  vs.  12  to  the 
extent  that  the  predicate  in  the  two  places  is  different ;  in  vs. 
12  daijke^v,  in  vs.  18  iyevero  (to  be  supplied).     Furthermore, 
in  vs.  18  protasis  and  apodosis  correspond  so  accurately  to  each 
other  both  in  form  and  contents,  while  the  analogy  with  vs.  12 
is,  at  least  formally,  so  inexact,  that  it  is  hard  ^to  suppose  an 
immediate  reference  of  vs.  18  to  vs.  12.     Or  is,  pferhaps,  the 
missing  apodosis  in  vs.  12  itself?     If  so,  it  must  be  given  in 
the  words  Kal  ovtoj<;  ct?  TraVras  dvOpwTrov?  BirjkOev,  and  kul  must 
mean  "  also,"  which  even  at  the  head  of  an  apodosis  introduces 
no  difficulty.     But  do  protasis  and  apodosis  here  correspond  to 
each  other  ?     Not  thoroughly,  since  the  former  demands  not  a 
simple  sequence,  but   an    antithesis.     Therefore,  we   find    the 
apodosis  to  utaTrcp  .  .  .  iiaijkOcv  neither  in  vs.  15  nor  in  vs.  18, 


192  SINGLE    OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

and  still  less  in  vs.  12";  but  we  have  here  an  anacoluthon}     A 
passage  which  can  only  be  explained  by  the  correct  application 
of  the  exegetical    method,  and  where  the  non-observance  of 
which  method  may  cause  inexperienced  exegetes  to  miss  the  mark 
3ai.  iii.  20.  entirely,  is  Gal.  iii.  20,  cited  above  (§27).     Whoever  should 
begin  immediately  with  the  consultation  and  comparison  of  the 
various  explanations,  would  fall  into  endless  chaos,  and  would 
either  arrive  at  no  judgment  at  all,  or  at  least  at  no  independent 
and  sure  judgment.     Just  so,  if  he  should  begin  with  the  mean- 
ing of  the  single  difficult  expressions.     We  are  rather  to  begin 
with  the  accurate  tracing  of  the  connection.     But  now  it  is,  in- 
deed, very  possible  that  other  exegetes  have  viewed  this  differ- 
ently, and  generally  in  such  cases  still  other  elements  come  into 
Other  ex-   consideration.     The  other  explanatioiis^  therefore,  at  least  the 
^^^hccon-   more  impoi-tant  ones,  must  be  compared.     But  these  other  ex- 
"  ^^^  '      planations  are  legion.     How,  now,  are  we  to  arrive  at  an  inde- 
Cias.sifica-   pendent  exegetical  judgment?     The  process  is  facilitated  by 
planations.  classifying  the  explanations, "and  comparing  the  different  classes 
with  tlie  result  at  which  one  has  arrived  independently  through 
an  examination  of  the  connection.     With  reference  to  vs.  19, 
the  difference  among  interpreters  consists  principally  in  the  fact 
that  somfe  find  in  the  words  Starayets  8t'  dyyeXcui/  a  glorifying 
predicate  of  the  law,  and  in  general  reject  the  supposition  that 
Paul  meant  to  express  in  this  verse  the  inferiority  of  the  law ; 
Grounds  of  but  the  Others  maintain  this.     If  we  would  know  the  grounds 
of  the  former  view,  they  are  as  follows  :  1)  It  is  a  most 

important  consideration  that  where  angels  are  mentioned  in 
Scripture  they  serve  for  the  glorification  of  God  as  well  as  of 
the  matter  with  which  they  are  connected,  Matt.  xxiv.  31  ;  xxv. 
31  ;  John  i.  52,  and  of  the  law  itself,  Deut.  xxxiii.  2  (LXX)  ; 
Acts  vii.  bo  ;  2)  neither  is  Iv  x^ipl  fxea-LTov  a  degrading  ele- 
ment, since  even  the  gospel  was  given  through  Christ  and  even 
Christ  is  called  /Mco-tTT/s,  1  Tim.  ii.  5  ;  Ileb.  viii.  6  ;  ix.  15  ;  xii. 

J  The  explanation  here  given  is  probably  the  correct  one,  and  is  coming 
to  be  arlopted  by  scholars  who  do  not  think  it  unworthy  of  an  inspired 
Apostle  to  fail  to  coniplete  a  sentence,  Such  cases  are  not  infrequent,  in 
the  writintrs  of  Paul.  —  Tr. 


THE   EXEGETICAL  JUDGMENT.  193 

i)  That  a  degradation  of  the  law  here,  in  general, 
did  not  lie  at  all  in  the  intention  of  Paul.  On  the  contrary,  the 
others  observe  :  ad  1)  this  is,  indeed,  granted ;  but  a  distinction  Answers, 
is  to  be  made  between  passages  where  angels  are  simply  joined 
to  God  (Christ)  and  those,  where  as  a  result  of  a  puristic  idea 
of  God,  instead  of  conceiving  of  God  as  the.  only  cause,  angels 
are  mentioned  as  mediators  ;  ad  2)  this  is  very  questionable, 
nay  rather  to  be  rejected,  since  by  fieaiTrj^  Moses  is  here  un- 
questionably meant  (see  Deut.  v.  5  ;  Philo,  De  Vit.  Mos.  II. 
p.  678  et  al.),  and  since  Moses  as  /xeatrT^s  is  here  opposed  to 
the  one  God,  therefore  iv  x^'-P'-  IJ-^o-ltov  can  here  point  to  noth- 
ing else  than  something  subordinate,  as  compared  with  the 
promise  ;  ad  3),  finally,  it  is  observed  :  this  is  just  the  ques- 
tion ;  or  rather  there  is  no  question  at  all,  but  that  the  connec- 
tion and  the  intention  of  the  passage  demand  a  subordination 
of  the  law  to  the  promise  ;  since  from  vs.  15  onwards,  Paul 
shows  that  the  covenant  of  the  promise  cannot  have  been  made 
of  no  avail  through  the  law  which  came  so  much  later  (vs.  15- 
17),  and  the  inheritance  is  bestowed  not  by  virtue  of  the  law, 
but  by  virtue  of  the  promise  (vs.  1 8) .  Now  in  vs.  1 9  the  objection 
is  raised  :  lYhy,  then,  was  the  law  given,  and  immediately  there- 
upon it  is  answered,  rtov  irapafSaa-ewv  xapiv  ireOr]  —  a  thought 
that  is  found  also  in  Rom.  v.  20  ;  vii.  13  ;  and,  indeed,  by  no 
means  as  an  excrescence,  but  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Pauline 
teaching.  When,  now,  there  immediately  follows  :  Siarayet's  Si 
ayyiXwv,  Iv  x^ipt  jJceaiTov,  the  law  can  here  be  designated  1) 

only  as  a  temporary  institution  {a)^is  ov  eXOrj  .  .  .  ),  and  2) 
only  as  an  antithesis  to  the  promise,  which  is  also  confirmed  by 
the  words  that  follow.  Whoever  —  as  he  should  —  has  first 
of  all,  without  bias,  plunged  into  the  Apostle's  course  of  thought, 
will  find  this  last  ground  in  particular  convincing,  and  will  not 
permit  himself  to  be  led  astray  by  the  counter-arguments. 
And  now,  vs.  20?  We  here  refer  in  the  first  place  to  the 
proof  given  above  of.  the  connection  (§  27).  But  much  as.  the  Due  re^rard 
exegete  must  bear  this  in  mind,  he  must  be  careful  not  to  to  tife'JIewa 
exclude  the  possibility   that  others  have  viewed   the   matter^^^^^®*^* 

it' 


194  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

Otherwise,  and  perhaps  better  than  himself.  What,  now,  clo  the 
exegetes  say  ?  And  how  are  we  to  find  our  way  among  the 
two  hundred  and  fifty  explanations  ?  1)  By  eliminating  the 
explanations  inconsistent  with  the  connection,  as,  e.g.  those  that 
refer  the  /xco-trT^s  to  Christ.  In  general  in  all  such  cases  the 
forest  of  explanations  is  to  be  cleared  up  through  the  elimina- 
tion of  the  luxuriant  undergrowth  of  fallacious  and  useless  ex- 
planations. 2)  The  way  to  an  independent  judgment  is,  as 
has  been  already  said,  to  bring  the  more  important  explanations 
under  certain  natural  points  of  view,  and  thus  to  classify  them. 
Since  we  are  not  to  give  here  a  commentary  on  the  passages  in 
question,  but  only  instruction  as  to  how  in  difficult  cases  a  well- 
grounded  and  independent  exegetical  judgment  may  be  attained, 
we  must  be  content  with  the  following :  1)  We  may  dis- 
tinguish between  the  explanations -which  suppose  a  progress  of 
thought  between  vs.  19  and  vs.  20,  and  those  which  recognize  no 
such  progress,  but  regard  vs.  20  as  a  parenthetical  thought ;  2) 
between  those  that  recognize  in  vs.  20  a  historical  relation  and 
those  that  see  in  it  only  an  altogether  general  proposition  ;  3) 
between  such  as  understand  ei/ds  and  cts  numerically  and  indi- 
vidually and  those  which  understand  both  of  one  party.  There 
is  naturally  a  host  of  shadings  of  each  of  these  principal  ex- 
planations, which  we  here  leave  unnoticed.  In  order  to  arrive 
at  a  decision,  not  only  the  connection  with  the  foregoing,  but 
also  with  what  follows,  is  here  to  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion ;  a)  with  the  foregoing,  immediately  preceding  was 
the  objection  ri  ovv  o  vofio^s ;  answered  thus  :  "  for  the  sake  of 
transgressions  it  was  given  "  ...  iv  ^etpt  /Ltecrtrov.  That  stress 
is  laid  not  on  the  Staray.  8i'  dyy.  but  on  the  words  eV  x^'-P'^  fxeai- 
Tov,  is  proved  precisely  by  vs.  20,  which  —  whatever  may  be 
the  furtlier  explanation  —  gives  an  explanation  to  the  /xeo-trrys. 
Let  us  regard,  provisionally,  the  sense  of  vs.  20  as  an  unknown 
X,  and  attend  (3)  to  the  connection  with  what  follows  :  vs. 
21  contains  an  objection,  viz.  "  Is  now  the  law  against  the 
promise  of  God  ?  "  This  objection  presupposes  a  thought  that 
might  lead  to  such  a  consequence,  viz.  to  an  opposition  between 


THE   EXEGETICAL   JUDGMENT.  195 

law  and  promise.  Such  a  thought  is  not  found  in  vs.  20,  but 
rather  in  vs.  1 9,  and  this  lends  confirmation  to  our  explanation 
of  vs.  19  ;  but  at  the  same  time  opposes  those  explanations  of 
vs.  20  which  discover  here  a  progress  of  thought ;  but  vs.  20 
contains  no  progress  of  thought ;  hence,  on  account  of  the  yap, 
it  can  contain  only  a  parenthetical  elucidation.  But  to  such  a 
parenthetical  clause  a  historical  relation  of  the  expression  so 
generally  maintained  is  not  suitable.  Terse  20  is,  therefore, 
to"  be  viewed  in  its  abstract  general  sense.  But  how  is  it,  now, 
with  evo's  and  eU  ?  The  expression  is  so  general  that  it  makes 
no  difference  whether  h/os  is  translated  "  one  person  "  or  "  one 
party."  On  the  other  hand,  the  relation  between  the  two 
members  of  the  verse  is  questionable;  indeed,  it  is  evidently 
antithetical,  but  the  antithesis  is  shrouded  in  darkness  for  the 
reason  that  iv6<;  and  cI?  are  not  congruous,  and  that  it  is  ques- 
tionable whether  els  has  in  both  places  the  same  meaning.  The 
former  difficulty  is  cleared  up  by  the  consideration  that  Paul 
evidently  could  not  say  6  Sk  Oeos  ao's  icmv.  But  even  in  this 
there  is  no  ground  to  attribute  to  the  second  et?  another  mean- 
ing than  to  the  first.  Therefore,  vs.  20  is  a  general  parenthet- 
ical elucidation  —  not  of  the  person,  but  —  of  the  idea  fxeair-qs : 
"  The  ix€(TLTr)^  is  not  the  ixeairr]';  of  one  person,  but  of  two  ;  but 
God  is  not  a  mediator  between  two,  but  he  is  one,  one  person ; 
i.e.  the  mediator,  through  whom  the  law  was  given  (Moses), 
is  a  mediator  between  tw^o,  sc.  between  God  and  the  Israel- 
ites (see  Deut.  V.  5)  ;  but  God,  who  gave  the  promise,  is  one 
person,  and  there  is  with  him  neither  a  duality  of  persons, 
nor  a  mediation."  But  Paul  in  order  to  bring  sharply  before 
the  consciousness  the  difference  between  the  promulgation  of 
the  law  and  the  promise,  expresses  the  thought  not  in  concreto, 
but  in  abstract o.  Thus  the  accurate  grasping  of  the  connection.  How  the 
combined  with  the  sifting  of  the  various  explanations,  leads  to  iJattained. 
a  proper  estimate  of  the  latter,  and  in  general  to  a  genuine 
exegetical  judgment. 

43.    Difficulties. 

The  exegetical  judgment  may  be  rendered  difficult,  or  may- 
be foiled,  either  through  the  difficulty  of  the  passage  itself,  or 


196 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 


Difficulties 
of  the  inex- 
perienced. 


Commen- 
taries as 
causes  of 
difficulty. 


Moans  of 
obviating 
such  dif- 
ficulties. 


Defective 
judjrmont 
on  the  part 
of  tl»8  exe- 
gete. 


through  the  exegetical  helps  consuhed,  or  through  defective 
judgment  on  the  part  of  the  interpreter.  One  who  is  alto- 
gether inexperienced  may  be  so  situated  with  reference  to  a 
difficult  passage,  as  not  to  observe  the  difficulty,  because  for 
him  everything  is  difficult.  If  such  a  one  takes  counsel  of  the 
commentators,  he  cannot  but  be  perplexed.  The  cause  of 
such  inexperience  is  defective  preparatory  education.  Another 
sees  the  difficulty  of  the  passage,  but  is  not  in  a  position  to 
overcome  it.  The  only  remedy  is,  not  to  remain  standing  in 
a  vague  feeling 'of  the  difficulties,  but  to  seek  above  all  to  be- 
come clearly  conscious  of  them  ;  only  then  can  the  exegetical 
heljDS  be  of  real  service  to  one.  But  the  difficulty  of  forming 
an  exegetical  judgment  often  lies  in  having  taken  counsel  of 
the  commentaries,  i.e.  in  the  diversity  of  the  explanations. 
Several  explanations  may  be  plausible,  and  yet  may  so  differ 
that  the  somewhat  unpractised  exegete  knows  not  how  to 
choose.  In  such  a  case  two  things  are  necessary  :  1)  To 
have  before  the  mind,  as  clearly  as  possible,  the  questions  on 
which  he  desires  information  from  his  helps,  and  2)  a 
knowledge  of  the  grounds  of  the  various  explanations  that  have 
been  found.  Tliis  difference  rests,  namely,  not  seldom  upon"  a 
difference  of  hermeneutical  principles  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mentators, e.g.  whether  they  make  their  basis  as  much  as  pos- 
sible the  linguistic  usage  of  good  Greek,  or.  whether  they  have 
regard  to  the  Hebraistic  usage  ;  whether  they  make  the  con- 
nection the  principal  thing,  or  attend  chiefly  to  linguistic  usage 
and  analogy.  Such  a  tracing  back  to  their  causes  of  the  dif- 
ferent explanations  compels  the  exegete  to  keep  clearly  in  view 
the  correct  hermeneutical  principles,  which  can  lead  him  to 
the  exegetical  judgment.  But  the  exegetical  judgment  is 
not  seldom  hindered  and  foiled  through  the  defective  or  un- 
sound power  of  judging  of  the  exegete  himself.  This  trouble 
it  is  hard  to  remedy  ;  because,  however  ready  one  may  be  to 
lament,  e.g.  the  weakness  of  his  memory,  nobody  is  willing 
to  confess  the  weakness  or  the  erroneousness  of  his  judgment. 
The  uneducated  are,  as  a  rule,  hasty  in  judgment,  because  they 


THE  EXEGETICAL  JUDGMENT.  197 

do  not  know  the  conditions  of  a  correct  judgment.  He  who  is 
accustomed  to  reflect,  on  the  contrary,  comes  to  a  conchision 
with  difficulty,  because  he  cannot  escape  a  discrimination  of  the 
possibilities.  Such  a  one,  in  face  of  the  difficulty  and  the  vari- 
ous explanations  of  a  passage,  will  not  see  the  forest  for  the 
simple  trees.    Such  a  one  would  do  well  not  to  venture  at  once  The  inex-  • 

DGri^TiCGd 

on  difficult  passages,  but  to  exercise  his  judgment  on   easier  should  not 
parts  ;  or,  if  he  is  forced  to  the  explanation  of  a  difficult  pas-  much, 
sage,  first  to  hold  himself  entirely  aloof  from  the  different  ex- 
planations, and  to  form  a  judgment  chiefly  through  an  accurate 
study  of  the  connection,  and  only  then  to  confirm  or  correct 
this  judgment  through  the  consultation  of  the  exegetical  helps. 
Should  he  through  these  helps  be  led  astray  again,  he  should 
not  persist  in  setting  forth  a  definite  result,  but  should  hold  to 
the  best  founded  and  the  most  probable  explanations.     A  non 
liquet  is  under  certain  circumstances  not  ill-becoming,  even  to 
a  practiced  investigator.     A  cause  of  many  exegetical  errors 
lies  also  in  the  fact  that  one  has  taken  it  into  his  head  before 
hand  to  find  difficulties  ;  then,  .indeed,  that  easily  appears  dif- 
ficult which  is  not  difficult,  and  the  guide  to  judgment  is  lost. 
Frequently,  an  exaggerated  and  hair-splitting  acuteness  leads  Exagger- 
to  perverted  exegetical  judgment.     Without  acuteness,  indeed,  ^Ss  as'a  ^' 
no  accuracy  in  investigation  —  no  proper  insight  into  the  object  Irror.^ 
to  be  investigated  —  is  possible  ;  but  if  the  acuteness  consists 
in  finding  one's  delight  in  hair-splitting,  or  in  not  being  content 
with  the  clear  relation  of  the  matter,  but  —  as  the  French  say 
—  in  seeking  midi  a  quatorze  heures,  he  is  on  the  wrong  road, 
and  corrupts  the  judgment.     It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  "Common 
mere  "  sound  human  reason  "  is  insufficient  for  understanding  qJIJite, 
the  authors  of  the  New  Testament,  inspired  as  they  are  by  the  sufficient  of 
Divine   Spirit,  but  that  the  7rv€i/w,a  is  requisite ;  yet  without  ^  ^®  * 
sound  human  reason,  which  distinguishes  the  simple  from  the 
complicated,  the  straight-forward  from  the  perverse,  no  exeget- 
ical judgment  is  possible.     The  TTvcr/xa  does  not  suppress,  but  it 
expands  "  common  sense  ^  (iCor.  ii.  14, 15).     If  the  pneumatic 
interpretation  is  to  consist  in  the  finding  of  mysteries  behind 
17* 


198         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

the   clearest  words,  the    exegetical   judgme.nt   will  be   dulled 
beforehand.      A  variety  of   the    pseudo-pneumatic  interpreta- 
tion consists  in  making  exegesis  subservient  to  a  certain  system. 
The  condi-   The  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  all  exegetical  judgment  is,  that  a 

tio  sine  qua  ^  t/./.?.  ••  ? 

non.  man  he  able  to  abstract  himself  from  his  own  opinions  and 

fancies,  and  to  throw  himself  into  views  and  thoughts  foreign 

from  his  own. 

3.    Logical  Explanation. 

a)  Explanation  of  the  connection  of  the  individual  thoughts 

among  themselves. 

44.   Rhetorical   Elements. 

Logical  and      The  logical  explanation  is  closely  connected  with  the  gram- 

grammati-  %._  ,  ,  .  .  .  ^ 

caiexpiana- matical.  Here  as  there  the  connection  comes  into  considera- 
guished.  "  tion,  and  here  as  there  this  is  determined  essentially  through 
the  conjunctions.  But  if  the  grammatical  explanation  has 
to  do  chiefly  with  the  language  of  the  author,  and  with  the 
thought  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  dependent  on  the  language,  so 
the  logical  explanation  is  occupied  entirely  with  the  thought 
itself  and,  indeed,  predominatingly  with  the  form  of  the 
thought ;  but  with  the  linguistic  element  only  in  so  far  as  this 
latter  conditions  not  only  the  matter,  but  also  the  form  of  the 
discourse.  In  this  relation  are  the  rhetorical  figures  and  the 
dialectic  turns  of  importance  ;  the  rhetorical  figures  in  so  far  as 
they  likewise  belong  to  the  form  of  the  discourse  and  mani- 
The  rhetor-  foldly  pass  over  into  the  dialectic.  We  set  out,  therefore,  with 
kew  Test,  a  survey  of  the  most  important  New  Testament  rhetorical  and 
Khetoricai  dialectic  forms.  1)  The  rAe^oriVa/ in  the  New  Testament  a) 
Rhetorical  expressions  and  figures.  To  these  belong,  first  of 
all,  the  metaphor.  Compare,  among  others  the  expressions, 
v^iv^v  and  Sii/^ai/,  Matt.  v.  6  ;  John  vi.  35  ;  vii.  37  ;  rpex^tv, 
Rom.  ix.  16  ;  Gal.  ii.  2  (otherwise  2  Thess.  iii.  1)  ;  TrcptTrarcti/ 
£v  TLVL,  Horn.  vi.  4  ;  2  Cor.  iv.  2  ;  Eph.  ii.  2,  10  ;  also  TreptTrarcti/ 
Kara  ardpKa,  Kara  -rrvevfxa,  etc.,  Rom.  viii.  4  et  al. ;  iv^vea-Oai,  e.g. 
rov  Xpujrovy  acfiOapaLavy  dOavaalav,  rbv  Kauov  (viov)  avOpwTroVy 
Gal.  iii.  27 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  53,  54 ;  2  Cor.  v.  3,  4  j  Eph.  iv.  24; 


CONNECTION   OF  INDIVIDUAL  THOUGHTS.  199 

Col.  iii.  10;  oiKoSo/xetv  (-ciadaL),  1  Cor.  iii.  9;  1  Pet.  ii.  5; 
ottXl^uv  (-^ea-Oai),  1  Pet.  iv.  1.  In  general  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  the  idea  of  the  metaphor  has  been  frequently  far  too  much 
extended,  and  has  been  applied,  e.g.  to  similes  and  to  parabol- 
ical expressions.  Moreover,  we  are  never  to  forget  that  the 
biblical  authors  indeed  understood  many  figurative  expressiong 
far  more  literally  than  we  matter-of-fact  Occidentals  understand 
them.  We  are  to  mention,  further,  the  mefonyme.  Most  fre- 
quent of  all  is  the  abstract  for  the  concrete,  as  TrdAt?  for  TroXtVat, 
'UpoaoXvixa  for  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  also  the  words 
■n-peafSela,  ^cpaTreia,  dSeXc^oTT^s  (1  Pet.  ii.  17  ;  V.  9),  17  iKXoyrj  for 
ot  ckXcktoi,  (Rom.  xi.  7),  Tr^pirofx-q  and  aKpofivaria  for  the 
circumcised  and  the  uncircumcised  (Rom.  ii.  26  ;  Gal.  ii.  7  f.). 
The  synecdoche  which  includes  sundry  things,  e.g.  all  for  much, 
and  vice  versa,  the  plural  for  the  singular,  and  among  others, 
(cf.  two  special  kinds  of  synecdoche  treated  under  /3).  The 
emphasis  and  the  so-called  Scivott^s  consisting  chiefly  in  repeti- 
tion, e.g.  Kvpt€,  KvpL€,  Matt.  vii.  21 ;  2t/xcov,  '^tp.wv,  Luke  xxii.  31 ; 
SttovA,  %aov\.  Acts  ix.  4  ;  'UpovcraXrjix,  'UpovaaXrjfx,  Luke  xiii. 
33;  Matt,  xxiii.  37;  further  the  emphatically  repeated  dAAa, 
1  Cor.  vi.  11  ;  2  Cor.  vii.  11.  Finally,  the  ploij  on  ivords,  of 
which  Paul  especially  makes  frequent  use,  e.g.  aKpo^varia  in 
the  same  sentence  in  different  senses,  Rom.  ii.  26  ;  in  like 
manner  vo>o?,  Rom.  iii.  21  ;  viii.  2,  3  ;  StKaioavvrj  in  the  same 

wav  Rom.  ix.  30,  31.       B)  Rhetorical  turiis  :  to  these  belong  Ehetorical 
^'^•y'  '  ^^  ,  ,  ^,  -p  -,.     turns, 

the  personification  or  Trpoo-wTroTroaa,  e.g.  o  fc'amTOS,  Kom.  v.  14: ; 

1  Cor.  XV.  55  ;  ^  apLapTta,  Rom.  vi.  14  ;  James  i.  15  ;  rj  eTnOv- 

liia ;  ri  ypacl>rj,  Gal.  iii.  8,  22  ;  the  apostrophe,  INIatt.  xi.  2X  f. ; 

xxiii.  37;  Luke  xix.  42-44;  Rom.  ii.  1,  3,  17;  xi.  13,  24; 

James  ii.  18,  19 ;  v.  1-6  ;  the  sijnecdoche  so  far  as  a  general 

truth  is  expressed  in  a  special  form :  Matt.  v.  39-41 ;  vi.  3, 17  ; 

X.  42  ;  xviii.  8  ;  xxiv.  40,  41 ;  Luke  xii.  52  ;  xiii.  32  ;  xvii.  31, 

et  al. ;   and  so  far  as   an   earthly  (e.g.   a  merely  prudential 

motive)   is   put   for  a  spiritual :  Matt.  v.  25;  39  ff. ;  vi.  17; 

Luke  xiv.  8-11.     These  two  synecdochical  forms  are  confined 

almost  entirely  to  the  synoptic  discourses  of  Jesus.     The  con- 


200  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

trast :  Matt.  vii.  3  ;  xvi.  26  ;  Horn.  ii.  21,  23  ;  1  Cor.  i.  18,  21  ; 
2  Cor.  iv.  8,  9  ;  \i.  8-10.  The  paradox  and  the  oxymoron: 
Matt.  X.  39  and  xvi.  25  ;  xiii.  12  and  xxv.  29;  Rom.  iv.  18  ; 
1  Cor.  i.  21,  25;  iii.  18;  ix.  19;  2  Cor.  iv.  8-10;  xii.  10 
('•When  I  am  weak,  then  am  I  strong").  Irony:  Matt.  ix. 
12,  13  ;  Luke  xv.  7  ;  xiii.  33  ;  1  Cor.  iv.  8  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  7, 19  f. 
Further,  the  hyperbole,  which  is  found  not  only  in  rhetorical 
language,  but  even  in  plain  prose  :  Mark  iii.  7,  8  ;  Luke  vi. 
17  ;  xii.  1  ;  Matt.  xi.  23  ;  Rom.  i.  8;  as  also  the  opposite  of 
this,  the  meiosis  or  litotes  :  John  vi.  37  ("  will  not  cast  out,") 
Rom.  i.  16  ("I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel";  yet  the 
passage  may  be  thought  of  also  without  litotes),  Rom.  v.  5 
("maketh  not  ashamed"),  Heb.  ii.  11  (-'he  is  not  ashamed  to 
call  them  brethren"),  Heb.  xi.  16.  The  aposiopesis :  Luke 
xix.  42  ("  if  thou  hadst  known,  even  thou,  in  this  thy  day  the 
things  that  belong  to  thy  peace  "  —  sc.  how  well  would  it  be  for 
thee!),  John  vi.  61,  62  ("If,  then,  you  should  behold  the  son 
of  man  ascending  where  he  was  before  ...  ?"  sc.  what  would  you 
then  say  ?  Or,  then  would  you  not  be  offended  still  more?)  ; 
Rom.  ix.  22,  23  ("  But  if  God,  willing  to  show  forth  his  wrath 
and  to  make  known  his  power,  endured  with  much  long-suffer- 
ing vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction,"  —  sc.  canst  thou 
etill  complain  of  injustice?).  In  these  examples  it  may  suffice 
'to  show  what  coloring  Jesus,  the  Apostles,  and  the  disciples  of 
the  Apostles  have  given  to  their  discourses,  and  hpw  the  inter- 
preter, side  by  side  with  the  contents  of  their  words,  has  to  jmy 
attention  also  to  the  peculiar  forms  in  which  these  contents  are 
clothed. 

45.    Dialectic    ElementSi 

The   dialectic   forms   of   speech.      Although   these   belong 

chiefly  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  yet  they  are  also  tolerably  frequent 

Questions  in  the  synoptic  discourses  of  Jesus.     We  find  oftenest  of  all 

of  various  .     '        »  ...  ^ 

intentions,  questions  01  very  various  mtentions  ;  a)  Counter-questions  : 
Matt.  XV.  3  f. ;  xxi.  24,  25  ;  xxii.  20  (Luke  xx.  24)  ;  Luke  x. 
26  ;  XX.  3  f. ;  .  )8)  Suggestive  questions  :  Matt.  xi.  7-9  (Luke 
\ii.  24-26) ;  Matt.  xxii.  42  coll.  John  vi.  67.       y)   Disjunctive 


CONNECTION   OF  INDIVIDUAL  THOUGHTS.  201 

questions  :  Matt.  xxi.  28-31  ;  Luke  vi.  9 ;  vii.  41-42  ;  x.  36 

coll.  29  ;  xiv.  4.       8)    Contradictory  questions  :  Matt.  ix.  15  ; 

xii.  3,  4,  26;  xv.  3  f . ;  xxi.  40;  xxii.  21,  43  f . ;  Luke  xvii. 

17,  18  ;  also  John  xiii.  38  ;  xiv.  9.       c)   Enhancing  questions : 

John  i.  51  ;  vi.  62.       t,)   Transmutation  of  idle  questions  into 

questions  of  conscience :  Luke  x.  29  coll.  36  ;  xiii.  23,  24  ;  cf. 

xix.  11-27.     Arguments  also  of  various  sorts  are  found  in  the  :Argument3 
•^  _         found  111  the 

Gospels,  most  frequently  of  all         a)  argumenta  a  minor!  ad  Gospels. 

majus  :  Matt.  vi.  26  ;  vii.  9-11 ;  x.  29-31  ;  xii.  11,  12  ;  Luke 
xi.  5-13;  xii.  27,  28;  xiii.  15,  16;  xv.  4-11;  xvi.  10-12; 
xviii.  6,  7  ;  cf.  John  iii.  12  ;  v.  26-29.  (3)  argumenta  a  ma- 
jori  ad  minus :  Matt.  ix.  6  and  parallel  passages  ;  x.  25  ;  John 
xiii.  14,  15  ;  xv.  20.  With  reference  to  this  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  now  and  then  an  argumentum  a  minori  ad  majus  may  also 
be  conceived  of  as  an  argumentum  a  majori  ad  minus,  and  vice 
versa,  according,  indeed,  as  the  empharis  is  put  upon  the  sub- 
ject or  upon  the  predicate.  y)  argumenta  ex  absurdo  :  Matt. 
ix.  15  ;  xii.  25,  26;  xxii.  43-45.  8)  argumenta  ab  effectu  : 
Luke  vii.  21,  22,  44-47  ;  John  xviii.  36.  e)  argumenta  e 
concessis:  Matt.  v.  46,  47  (Luke  vi.  32-34)  ;  xv.  27  and  par- 
allels ;  Luke  xiii.  15,  16  ;  xiv.  28-33  ;  xv.  4-6,  8,  9  ;  xvii.  7- 
10  ;  xxii.  27.  Q  arguments  from  analogy,  often  coinciding 
with  the  argumenta  e  concessis:  Matt.  xii.  3,  4;  ix.  15-17: 
XV.  17-19;  xviii.  23  £f. ;  xxiv.  43,  44;  Luke  xi.  5-13;  xviii. 
1-8  ;  xiv.  28-33  ;  John  iii.  29,  et  al.  But  the  dialectic  method  Dialectics 
of  instruction  is  found  chiefly  in  Paul.  First  of  all  is  here  to  i^aui/^" 
be  mentioned  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  Apostle  com- 
bines Scripture  arguments  with  rational  arguments,  and  the 
latter  with  the  former  ;  in  part,  namely,  he  avails  himself  of 
Scripture  arguments  as  a  point  of  departure  for  his  argumenta- 
tion, as  in  Rom.  iii.  9-20  ;  iv.  3  fp.  ;  ix.  15,  16,  17,  18  ;  x.  16  f. ; 
1  Cor.  X.  1  fe.  ;  xiv.  21  ;  Gal.  iii.  8  ;  iv.  21  if. ;  cf.  Eph.  iv.  8  f. ; 
in  part,  the  Scripture  arguments  serve  him  as  a  confirmation 
and  a  key-stone  of  his  logical  reasonings  :  cf.  Rom.  ix.  24,  25, 
31-33  ;  X.  15  ;  xi.  2-5,  7-10,  25-27  ;  xiv.  11  ;  1  Cor.  i.  31  ; 
iii.  19,  20  ;  X.  26  ;  xv.  54,  55  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  15  ;  ix.  9  ;  cf.  Eph. 


202         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 
The  ques-     y.  31.     The  dialectic  movinsf  of  the  Pauline  discourse  itself 

tioninPaul  *^  .,,.., 

shows  the  following  turns  :  extremely  frequent  with  him  is  the 

question,  and,  indeed,  a)  as  a  question  to  be  denied  or  to  be 
contradicted :  Rom.  iii.  9,  27,  29 ;  vi.  1,  15  ;  vii.  7 ;  ix.  14;  x. 
18,  19;  xi.  1,11;  1  ^or.  ix.  7,  11;  x.  19,  22;  xiv.  6,7,8,36; 
2  Cor.  i.  17;  xi.  11  ;  yS)  as  an  affirmatory  question:  Rom. 
■  iii.  1  ;  1  Cor.  viii.  10 ;  ix.  1,  4-6  ;  x.  16;  y)  as  a  shaming 
question :  Rom.  ii.  3,  4,  17-23  ;  1  Cor.  iii.  3,  4;  iv.  21  ;  v.  2  ; 
vi.  1,  2,  7,  8  ;  viii.  10 ;  xi.  22  ;  xv.  12 ;  Gal.  iii.  1  f. ;  iv.  9,  10, 
16;  V.  7;  8)  as  an  objection  (a  specifically  Pauline  turn), 
usually  introduced  through  the  formulae  tl  ovv  epov/xcv,  or  merely 
Tt  ovv,  €^€19  ovv,  and  the  like,  Rom.  iii.  3,  o  ;  vi.  1,  15  ;  vii.  7  ; 
ix.  14,  19,  30;  xi.  19.  But  side  by  side  with  this  also  a  re- 
futation of  every  objection  through  an  authoritative  expression  : 
Rom.  ix.  20,  21 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  16.  More  rare  is  c)  the  sug- 
Paul'sargu-  gestive  question  :  Rom.  iii.  1  ;  iv.  1.  The  reasonings  of  Paul 
appear  in  the  following  forms  :  a)  the  argumentum  a  minori 
ad  majus  :  Rom.  v.  8-10  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  7-11 ;  P)  the  argumen- 
tum a  majori  ad  minus  :  Rom.  xi.  21 ;  y)  a  special  exhorta- 
tion or  reproof  based  upon  the  general  relation  :  1  Cor.  iii.  21— 
23  ;  xi.  3-15,  23  f. ;  xfi.  4  ff. ;  xv.  Iff.;  8)  a  grounding  of  a 
general  direction  or  exhortation  on  a  special  (supposed)  case : 

I  Cor.  viii.  10;  x.  27-29;  xiv.  23,  24;  c)  argument  from 
contrast  or  antithesis:  1  Cor.  i.  19-25;  2  Cor.  iv.  7-11  ;  vi. 
8-10  ;  vii.  5  ;  ^)  argumentum  ex  absurdo  :  1  Cor.  xiv.  23  ; 
XV.  12-19,  29-32  ;  rj)  argument  from  history  :  Rom.  iv.  1-5 
and  10  f. ;  v.  1^-21  ;  ix.  7-12,  17  ;  xi.  3  f. ;  6)  appeal  to  the 
Christian  knowledge  of  the  readers  :  Rom.  vi.  16 ;  vii.  1  ;  1  Cor. 
vi.  2,  3,  9, 15  ;  Gal.  iv.  21  f. ;  i)  argument  from  analogy:  Rom. 
vii.  1-6 ;  Gal.  iv.  1  f.,  21  f. ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  7  f. ;  xv.  35  ff. ;  k) 
argument  from  the  experience  of  the  readers :  1  Cor.  i.  26  ff. ; 
xi.  30  ;  2  Cor.  vii.  11  f. ;  Gal.  iii.  2-5  ;  X)  argument  from  the 
experience  of  the  Apostle  :  1  Cor.  ii.  1  f. ;  Gal.  i.  1 1-24  ;  ii.  1-10, 

II  ff.;  fx)  argument  from  general  Christian  experience  (for 
the  most  part  in  the  form  of  a  (xeraaxrjiJi-aiTLcrfxoi)  :  Gal.  iii.  23-25 ; 
Rom.vii.7-24;  Gal.  ii.  19,  20  ;  Rom.  v.  1  ff. ;  viii.  1-4, 15, 16,26. 


CONNECTION   OF  INDIVIDUAL   THOUGHTS.  203 


It  may  be  shown  that  in  Paul's  Epistks  written  during  his  im- 
prisonment the  dialectic  element  is  less  prominent.     Outside  of  ^j^'If^tlcs 
i  ^       •  of  the  Epis- 

the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  that  which  J^^*^*'^- 

shows  dialectics  most  of  all.  The  following  are  the  principal 
turns  that  are  found  in  this  Epistle :  a)  the  Scripture  argu- 
ment as  the  foundation  of  an  inference  :  ii.  6 ;  vii.  1-10 ;  viii. 
8-13  ;  X.  5  f.  yS)  the  Scripture  aigument  as  the  conclusion 
of  a  process  of  reasoning:  v.  6^  vii.  17.       y)   argumentum  a 

minori  ad  mains:  ii.  2,  3  ;  ix.  13,  14;  x.  28,  29.     James  fur-  James 

J  ,  .  proves  by 

nishes  an  antithesis  to  the  dialectic  process,  seeking  to  convmce  examples. 

almost  never  through  rational  grounds,  but  for  the  most  part 

through  examples  :  i.  23,  24 ;  ii.  2-4  ;  xv.  16,  20  f. ;  iii.  4,  11 ; 

V.  17,  18.     A  form  of  speech  belonging  to  parenetic  discourse, 

and  according  with  the  essence  of  Christianity,  is  the  motiving 

of  an  exhortation  through  the  experience   of    salvation;  this 

occurs  in  almost  all  the  New  Testament  authors  :   Rom.  vi.  2 

f.,  13,  14;  viii.  9  ;  xii.  1-3  ;  Gab  iv.  9  ;  v.  1  ;  1  Pet.  1,  17  f., 

22,  23  ;  ii.  2-4 ;  iv.  1-3,  13  f. ;  1  John  iii.  1-3  ;  iv.  11  coll.  Gosp. 

of  John  V.  14  ;  xv.  9,  15,  16. 

46.   Conjunctions. 

The  loo-ical  explanation,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  connection  Relation  of 

®  ,1-11  the  logical 

of  the  individual  thoughts  among  themselves   is  closely  con-  explanation 
.     ,  -  .  -r     •  ij?       -1      i.  tothegram- 

nected  with  the  grammatical   explanation.     It  is  selt-eviclent  maticai. 

that  here  the  conjunctions  must  be  decisive.     But  now  text-  Various 

.  .11  T         r         readings, 

critical  difficulties  sometimes   enter,  in    that    the  reaclmg  tre- 

quently  wavers,  e.g.  between  yap  and  Se  ;  but  also  exegetical 
difficulties,  in  that  not  unfrequently  where  the  reading  is  criti- 
cally established,  one  conjunction  seems  to  be  used  for  another, 
as  likewise  Se  for  yap  arid  vice  versa,  ha  for  on,  oi(TT€.  for  ovv,  and 
v-ice  versa.  In  such  cases  we  are  not  to  suppose,  as  was  sup- 
posed by  many  of  the  older  interpreters,  a  confounding  of  the 
conjunctions  ;  but  where,  e.g.  U  appears  to  be  put  for  yap,  the 
author  has  annexed  the  antithetical  thought  to  the  foregoing, 
not  as  antithetical,  but  simply  as  a  new  thought ;  where  vice 
versa  yap  seems  to  be  put  for  8e,  as,  e.g.  Eom.  v.  7,  there  the 
antithetical  thought  is  treated  as  an  argumentum  e  contrario. 


204         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

*^^^^_^''*^''That  Iva  in  the  later  Greek  is  often  put  where  the  better 
writers  would  have  put  the  infinitive  or  an  objective  clause 
with  oTt,  is  well-known  (cf.  Winer,  Thayer's  ed.,  pp.  334,  335), 
and  must  be  maintained  against  puristic  elaboration.  Cases 
occur,  to  be  sure,  where  the  telic  meaning  also  is  admissible, 
as,  for  example,  after  verba  jubendi  et  exhortandi ;  but  often 
the  telic  meaning  could  be  adhered  to  only  with  the  greatest 
forcing,  as,  e.g.  OiXio  Iva,  a£ios  Iva,  apKerof;  Iva  (Matt.  x.  25), 
cTv/jicfiipeL  Zva  (Matt,  xviii.  G),  i/x6v  fSpQ^ixa  icniv  Iva  .  . .  (John  iv. 
34),  TToOev  fxoL  TovTo  Iva  .  .  .  (Luke  i.  43).  But  even  with  the 
KGLvoL^,  such  constructions  occur,  as  in  Arrian.  Epict.  OeXw  Iva 
(I.  18,  14),  TrpHrov  ccTTLv  Lva  (id.  1.  10,  8),  etc.  "Ii^a  seems  to 
.  have  been  put  also  now  and.  tlien  iKfSarLKQ}'^  as  ajorc.  But  it  is 
rather  to  be  said,  that  design  and  result  not  rarely  pass  over 
into  each  other,  and  that  which  apj^ears  as  mere  result  could  be 

Seofoffy.  conceived  of  by  the  author  as  design,  and  by  the  biblical  author, 
in  accordance  with  his  teleology,  could  be  put  as  a  divinely 
ordained  object,  as,  e.g.  John  ix.  2  ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  13  ;  Gal.  v.  17, 
as  already  John  of  Damascus  (De  orthod.  fide  IV.  20)  says : 
iOo^  T^  ypat^Tj,  TLva  CKjSartKojs  ocf^eLkovra  XeyecrOac,  airtoAoyiKws 
Xeyeiv.  Frequently  also  wore  and  ovv  appear  confounded,  cf. 
for  example,  Matt.  x.  1  ;  xxvii.  1 ;  Luke  ix.  52,  et  al.  In  all 
these  passages  wo-re  stands  for  the  designed  result,  which  even 
in  the  Greeks  is  not  rarely  the  case,  cf.  Thucydides,  IV.  23  ; 
Xenoph.,  Cyroped.  IIL  2,  16. 

47.     Participles. 

Among  the  grammatical  relations  that  may  exercise  an 
influence  on  the  logical  explanation  and  make  this  doubtful, 
we  make  special  mention  here  still  of  the  participial  relation^ 
which  may  be  either  a  temporal  or  a  causal  or  a  conditional 
relation,  or  may  be  resolved  through  "  although."  In  many 
cases  the  relation  is  to  be  ascertained  from  the  connection,  but 
not  always.  Even  tlie  temporal  relation  may  be  a  matter  of 
dispute,  and  cases  are  found  in  the  Kew  Testament,  where  this 
John  1.18.  even  exercises  an  influence  on  the  dogmatic  sense.  Cf.  John 
i.  18  :   6  jxovoyevr]*;  vtos  6  wv  cis  tov  koXttov  tov  Trar/Dos   iKclvos 


CONNECTION   OF   INDIVIDUAL  THOUGHTS.  205 

i^rjyrjaaTo.  Here  the  question  is,  whether  wv  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  present  or  as  imperfect.  Grammatically,  as  is  well- 
known, '  either  is  admissible;  but  for  the  sense  it  makes  an 
essential  difference  whether  we  render  "  who  is  in  heaven  "  or 
"  who  was  in  heaven."  The  matter  is  to  be  decided  only- 
through  an  ascertaining  of  the  sense  of  the  passage  as  a  whole. 
Does  the  Evangelist  mean  to  say,  the  only-begotten  Son,  who 
in  his  pre-existence  was  in  intimate  communion  with  the  Father, 
he  has  revealed,  etc.  ?  This  might  be  recommended  by  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos  of  the  prologue  ;  iii.  13  might  also  be  adduced 
in  favor  thereof.  But  fi-om  the  connection  we  ascertain  that 
after  vs.  14  the  transcendent  history  of  the  Logos  is  no  longer 
spoken  of,  but  the  experience  that  believers  have  of  the  incar- 
nate Logos  ;  and  with  regard  to  the  passage  iii.  13,  6  wv  tV  rw 
pvpavw  would  be  imperfect  if  it  were  said  6  wv  iv  t<Z  cvpav(Z  Kal 
€K  Tov  ovpavov  Kara^tts,  but  not  if  6  tiv  Iv  rw  ovpavw  is  appended, 
as  it  is.  But  the  view  also,  by  virtue  of  which  6  wv  is  taken 
as  present,  indeed,  but  is  referred  to  his  state  of  exaltation  in 
heaven,  has  the  connection  agahist  it.  Rather,  it  is  meant  to 
express  the  general  relation  of  the  incarnate  one,  and  wv  is 
therefore  to  be  conceived  as  present.  (So  already  Chrysostcm 
referred  the  word  to  the  avyyeveia  koI  ivorrjs).  Still  more 
difficult  is  the  temporal  relation  of  the  jxarticiples  in  Phil.  ii.  riiii.  ii,  6- 
6-8.     The    matters    in  question    here  are,  1)   whether  cv 

fiopcjiy  Oeov  vTrap-^ijiv,  etc.,  is  to  be  understood  as  present,  i.e. 
as  contemporaneous  with  apTcayfxcv  r(yy](jaro^  that  is  to  Fa}', 
whether  Christ  during  his  earthly  life  is  considered  as  Iv 
fxop(fifj  Oeov-vTrdp^iDV,  etc.,  or  whether  virdp-^oiv  is  to  be  conceived 
of  as  imperfect,  and  his  iv  p-opr^irj  Oeov  ttvat  as  Christ's  condition 
in  his  pre-existence.  (The  same  question  prevails  in  regard  to 
the  passage  2  Cor.  viii.  9)  ;  2)  whether  /xopc}ir]v  SovXov  Xafjwv 
was  understood  by  the  Apostle  as  preceding  the  iKilvwa€r,  or  as 
contemporaneous  therewith  ;  in  other  terms,  whether  by  the 
efccVojcrcv  iavTov  it  is  intended  to  designate  his  activity  during 
his  earthly  existence,  or  the  act  of  emptying  himself  of  the 
heavenly  life  as  Logos  for  the  limited  earthly  life.  The  first 
18 


206  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

cltusa^Q^'  t^^^^o  ^^  ^6  done  is,  to  inquire  into  the  grammatical  usage. 
With  regard  to  the  first  question  the  rule  holds  good,  that  the 
present  participle  construed  with  the  principal  verb  in  the 
preterite  indicates  a  contempora?ieous  action  or  state,  cf.  Luke 
ii.  47  ;  iii.  18  ;  iii.  14 ;  xxiv.  44  ;  Acts  v.  5,  et  al.  With  regard 
to  the  second  question  the  usage  preponderating  by  far  is,  in- 
deed, that  the  aorist  jDarticiple  construed  with  the  principal 
verb  in  the  preterite  expresses  'a.  preceding  action  or  state  ;  yet 
it  is  not  rarely  the  case  that  a  contemporaneous  action  or  state 
is  indicated  thereby  ;  cf.  Luke  viii.  54  ;  xi.  40  ;  Acts  x.  39,  etc. 

Connection  g^jj^e,  therefore,  the  grammatical  linguistic  usage  is  not  decisive, 
we  are  to  take  counsel  of  the  connection.  In  vs.  5  f.,  Christ  is 
represented  as  an  example  of  unselfishness  and  resignation  ; 
this  resignation  consisted,  according  to  vs.  6  f.,  in  the  "fact  that 
he  —  although  in  the  form  of  God  —  considered  likeness  to 
God  not  as  something  usurped,^  but  emptied  himself,  etc.  This 
V7rap;)(€tv  iv  iJiopcf>Y}  Ocov  is  (see  above)  contemporaneous  with 
the  ovx  dpTrayixov  rjyelcrOat  and  kcvovv  eavTov,  which  are  appli- 
cable as  well  to  his  pre-existence  as  to  his  earthly  life.  More 
important,  accordingly,  is  the  temporal  relation  of  the  participial 
clause  /xop(f>r]v  BovXov  A.ay8oji/  to  cKeVojcre  eavTov,  and  it  is  decisive 
for  the  whole.  And  here  the  circumstance  already,  that  the 
participle  stands  after  the  principal  verb,  is  favorable  to  the 
"  contemporaneousness  of  the  two  actions,  since  such  a  participle,' 
as  a  rule,  indicates  the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  principal 
action  happens  ;  cf.  Luke  xxi.  12  ;  Acts  v.  30  ;  vii.  24  ;  ix.  25  ; 
Thucydidcs,  L  23.  Now,  to  be  sure,  the  specification  of  the 
way  and  manner  may  be  also  temporal,  and  this  temporal 
determination  may  consist  in  a  foregoing  action,  as  Luke  xxiv. 

47,  but  this  is  then  indicated  through  the  contents  of  the  parti- 
• 
1  On  apiraynos  :  substantives  in  -/ttos  express,  as  a  rule,  the  intransitive 
meaninir  of  the  verbal  stem,  while  substantives  in  -(tis  express  the  trans- 
iiive  (cf.  Kiilincr,  Gram.  Cr.  I,  §  870).  If  in  the  later  Greek,  and  particu- 
larly ill  the  New  Testament,  this  distinction  is  no  lonjrcr  observed,  so 
ayiaauSi,  ^airTia-/x6s,  yoy^/uaixSs,  SiaAoyiauSs,  KaOtipi(r/j.6s,  iJ.epicriJ.6s,  ot'eiSia- 
n6^,  (Tviyde(Tfx6s,  xp'ni^o.Tiaixds,  j-ct  all  these  words  have  aho  the  transitive 
meaning,  aud  when  in  doubt  we  arc  to  make  this  our  starling  point. 


CONNECTION   OF  INDIVIDUAL  THOUGHT.  207 

cipial  clause.     Such  is  not  the  case  in  our  passage ;  and  we  have 
every  reason  to  understand  the  words  fjiop(f)r]v  SovXov  Aa/3a)v  as 
a  designation  of  the   manner  in   which    eKc'vcoo-cv   catrrov,  and 
accordingly  as   contemporaneous    therewith.     The   KcVcocris  of 
Christ  consisted,  therefore,  in  the  assumption  of  the  form  of  a 
servant ;  and  since  the  expression  fiop<f>r)  hovXov  stands  on  the 
one  hand  in  unmistakable  contrast  with  fJiop<}>r}  Oeovy  and  on  the 
other  hand  is  more  definitely  explained  through  the  eV  ofioLui- 
/xart   avOpwTTwv  yevo/xevos   which   follows  ;  the  sense  is  accord- 
ingly this,  that  Christ  is  our  example  in  self-renunciation,  in 
that  he  emptied  himself  of  the  i^opff)^  Oeod,  which  he  had  in  hia 
pre-existence,  and  assumed,  in  exchange  therefor,  the  form  of  a 
servant,  i.e.  the  simple  human  form.     (Thus  already  the  whole 
body    of    ancient    Greek    exegetes    understood    the    passage). 
These  examples  may  suffice  to  show  how  the  grammatical  and 
the   logical   explanation    stand  in  the   closest  connection,  and 
condition  one  another.      Cf.   moreover,  what   has  been    said 
above  (§  25  f.)  on  the  connection  as  a  means  of  explanation. 
48.   Lack  of  Connection,  seeming  or  actual. 
But  the  connection  is  often  questionable  and  difficult  from 
the  absence  of  any  conjunction  or  other  grammatical  annexa- 
tion.    This  occurs  not  only  in  rhetorical  (lo-vvSeVots,  but  it  is 
not  seldom  quite  uncertain  whether  there  exists  a  connection 
or  not.     Now  it  is  certainly  altogether   perverse    to  wish  to 
subtilize  out  a  connection  where  there  is  none.    So  would  it  be, 
for  example,  quite  idle  elaboration  to  seek  to  bring  out  a  con- 
nection between  the  sentences  Luke  xvi.  15-18,  while  these   Lukexvi. 
expressions  are  evidently  only  detached  apothegms  ;  cf.  vs.  16 
with  Matt.  xi.  12,  13,  where  the  expression  stands  in  a  good 
connection  ;  further,  vs.  17  with  Matt.  v.  18,  and  vs.  18  with 
Matt.  V.  32.     In  other  cases  the  matter  is,  in  fact,  questionable, 
in  that  even  if  a  connection  is  to  be  accepted,  yet  doubt  prevails 
as   to  what  connection  ;  cf.  the  macarisms  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  IMount,  Matt.  v.  3-12.     That  these  are  connected  among    ^L.'^* 
themselves  may  be  regarded  as  acknowledged.     But  what  is  the 
^  combining  thought  ?     Indeed,  after  the  answer  to  this  question 
18* 


208  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  TUE  INTERPRETER. 

has  come  forth,  a  different  light  accrues  to  vs.  8  in  particular. 
If  we  observe  first  of  all  the  situation,  we  see  that  these  macar- 
isms  are  not  directed  to  the  ox^ol,  whom  he  much  rather  avoids, 
but  to  the  disciples.  Accordingly,  it  is  evident  from  the  ar- 
rangement in  Matthew,  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  forms, 
.  as  it  were,  Jesus's  Messianic  programme,  and  the  macarisms  the 
introduction  to  the  same.  If  we  compare  now  this  situation  with 
the  contents  of  the  macarisms  themselves,  we  gain  the  conviction 
that  Jesus  here  declared  what  sort  of  men  are  fitted  for  the 
kinsfdom  of  heaven  which  he  brings.  From  this  fundamental 
thought,  as  from  the  extended  concluding  macarism,  it  follows 
that  those  can  scarcely  have  viewed  the  matter  correctly,  who 
would  find  in  vs.  3-6  the  negative,  and  in  vs.  7  and  the  follow- 
ing verses  the  positive  attributes  of  those  that  are  fit  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  "  That  not  positive  virtues,  but  suscepti- 
bility and  fitness  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  here  treated 
of,  is  evident  not  only  from  the  last  macarism,  which  refers  back 
to  the  first,  but  also  from  the  pervasive  relation  between  the 
felicitated  subjects  and  the  promises.  So  are  the  iXcyjfxove<s  not 
only  the  compassionate  in  general,  but  those  who  are  compas- 
sionate in  the  consciousness  how  much  they  themselves  need 
compassion  ;  the  KaOapoi  ry  KapSla  not  the  sinless  (cf.  on  the 
other  hand,  Matt.  ix.  12,  13 ;  Luke  xv.),  but  those  whose  heart 
is  sincere  and  true,  and  the  elprjvoTroLoi  not  merely  those  who  are 
pacific  in  general,  but  those  who  are  pacific  in  the  longing  for 
peace  with  God.  It  is  darker  and  more  disputed,  whether  the 
Mattvil.  expressions  Matt.  vii.  1-14  are  organically  connected  with  each 
other.  Verses  15-17  form,  evidently,  a  connecting  link,  hence 
only  the  connection  of  the  first  fourteen  verses  can  be  matter 
of  dispute.  We  are  to  take  as  our  starting-point  that  which  is 
without  doubt,  and  this  is  the  grovjnng  of  this  section.  Verses 
1-5  form  one  group,  and  treat  of  judging ;  vs.  6  appears  to 
stand  there  isolated;  on  the  other  hand  vs.  7-11,  whicli  treat 
of  the  effect  of  prayer,  form  in  turn  a  group,  while  vs.  12,  again, 
api)ears  to  stand  without  connection,  and  just  so  between  vs.  12 
and  the  two  following  verses,  which  treat  of  the  narrow  and 


CONNECTION   OF  INDIVIDUAL   THOUGHTS.  209 

broad  gates,  no  connection  is  established.  The  question  is, 
therefore,  more  definitely  to  be  expressed,  thus  :  Is  there  a  con- 
nection between  vs.  5  and  G,  between  vs.  6  and  7,  between 
vs.  11  and  12,  and,  finally^  between  vs.  12  and  13  ?  If  we 
take  the  more  certain  as  our  starting-point,  vs.  12,  wdiose  con- 
tents yet  appear  to  stand  in  no  connection  with  the  foregoing, 
yet  is  connected  with  the  foregoing  through  ow,  and  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  design  of  the  Evangelist,  the  consequence  of  what 
precedes.  "What  consequence  ?  The  combining  thought  is  pray- 
ing and  being  heard  :  just  as  we  ourselves  pray  and  desire  to  be 
heard,  so  shall  we  fulfil  the  desires  of  those  that  beg  of  us.  This 
combining,  which  here  has  to  be  supplied,  Luke  gives  (vi.  30, 
31).  If  now  the  Evangelist  intends  a  connection  between  vs. 
7-11  and  vs.  12,  where  there  appears  to  be  none,  the  probability 
is,  that  the  other  expressions  ulso,  although  connected  through 
no  conjunctions,  do  not  stand  without  connection  :  between  vs. 
1-5  and  vs.  6,  the  combining  thought  seems  to  be,  "  one  is  first 
to  judge  himself  before  he  judges  others,  but  then  are  others  also 
to  be  judged,  in  order  that  what  is  holy  be  not  bestowed  upon 
dogs."  Between  vs.  6  and  7  ff.,  the  correspondence  of  giving  and 
receivino^  forms  the  connection.  Finally,  between  vs.  12  and 
13  f.,  the  combining  thought  is  the  serious  task  and  difficulty 
that  are  involved  in  the  foregoing  expression,  in  opposition  to 
all  those  who  would  make  their  life-work  easy,  and  their  way 
of  life  comfortable  ;  cf.  further  on  in  the  chapter  vs.  21-27.  In  Principles, 
all  such  passages,  where  the  connection  is  difficult  and  doubtful, 
the  following  rules  apply  :  1)  We  must  always  take  the 
clearer  and  more  certain  as  our  starting-point,  and  seek  thence 
to  gain  light  for  the  darker  and  more  doubtful ;  2)  We 

must  attend  to  the  conjunctions ;  but  we  must  also  never  neglect 
a  survey  of  the  dark  passage  as  a  whole  ;  3)  We  must 
guard  against  underlaying  the  author  with  a  heterogeneous  or 
modem  nexus. 


210 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 


h)  Ascertaining  the  Course  of  Thought  of  an  Entire  Section, 

49.  Methods  and  Difficulties. 

Methods.  The  course  of  thought  of  a  section  admits  of  being  explained 

in  two  different  ways  :  a)  by  proceeding  from  the  individual 
parts,  and,  as  it  were,  advancing  from  below  upward  to  the  un- 
derstandinor  of  the  intention  and  of  the  fundamental  thought, 
and  b)  by  proceeding  from  the  fundamental  thought,  and  from 
these  gradually  descending  to  the  individual  parts.  Strictly 
taken,  these  two  methods  must  supplement  each  other ;  but,  as 
a  rule,  we  are  to  begin  with  the  first-mentioned  ;  therefore,  we 
give  to  the  ascertaining  of  the  course  of  thought  the  precedence 

Diflaculties.  of  the  ascertaining  of  the  fundamental  thought.  The  course  of 
thought  becomes  difficult  chiefly  in  the  following  cases :  a) 

when  the  individual  thoughts  stand  apparently  isolated  and 
without  connection,  cf,  §  48  ;  /3)  when  on  the  contrary  the 
individual  thoughts  seem  to  be  by  no  means  adequately  dis- 
criminated, but,  as  it  were,  are  blended  with  one  another,  as  in 
the  Johannean  writings,  and  y)  when  in  the  details  a  clear 
connection  of  thought  is  present,  but  the  whole  exhibits  an  in- 
ternal incongruity.  For  the  illustration  as  well  of  the  task  as 
of  its  accomplishment,  we  give  once  more  some  examples, 
relating  to  the  cases  mentioned  under  /?  and  y. 

50.  The  Johannean  Logic. 

Inquiry.  Most  of  the  Johunnean  discoui"ses  have  the  peculiar  difficulty, 

that  the  thoughts  seem  to  run  not  at  all  according  to  logical 
laws,  and  therefore  the  logical  explanation  sees  itself  robbed, 
as  it  appears,  of  the  logical  categories  as  means  of  ex[)lana- 
tion.  Is  this  course  —  mocking  at  all  logic  —  only  an  appear- 
ance ?  or  do  other  than  the  usual  determinations  of  thought 

Answer.  Stand  at  the  command  of  logical  exegesis  ?  The  answer  to 
these  questions  can  only  be  found  in  concreto.  Cf.  the  conversa- 
tion of  Jesus  with  Nicodemus,  John  iii.  1-21.  The  first  thing 
here  also  is  attention  to  the  connection  with  the  foregoing.  Just 
before  it  was  recounted,  that  during  Jesus's  sojourn  in  Jerusalem 
many  believed  in  him  for  the  sake  of  the  signs,  but  that  he  did 


John  iii. 
1-21. 


COURSE   OP  THOUGHT   OF   AN   ENTIRE   SECTION.      211 

not  commit  himself  to  tliem,  because  by  virtue  of  his  acutetiess 
he  penetrated  their  thoughts.  Now  one  of  those  that  believed 
in  him  for  the  sake  of  the  signs  was  Nicodemus  (vs.  2).  In 
the  unexpected,  and  on  its  face  somewhat  dark,  answer  of  Jesus 
every  one  understands  at  once  that  Jesus  means  to  make  him 
feel  the  insufficiency  of  this  faith  for  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
of  God.  Why  insufficient  ?  Doubtless,  because  anybody  may 
have  such  a  faith  without  having  undergone  any  moral  or  spir- 
itual change.  Therefore^  it  comes  about,  that  one  must  become 
another  man,  must  begin  his  life,  as  it  were,  anew  (cf.  Matt, 
xviii.  3).  The  nature  of  this  new  birth  now  is  discussed  to 
vs.  9,  between  Nicodemus,  disconcerted  in  religious  stupidity, 
and  Jesus,  standing  over  against  him  in  divine  superiority.  The 
avwOiv  ("from  above,"  cf.  iii.  31;  xix.  11)  was  completely 
unintelligible,  and  Nicodemus  remained  sticking  in  the  literal 
conception  of  the  yevvqOrjvai.  Jesus  aims  at  giving  Nicodemus 
a  better  understanding,  1)  through  a  repetition  of  the  sen- 
tence, only  with  a  more  definite  explanation  of  the  ai/w^ev 
through  the  words  i$  vSaros  kol  TrvevfxaToq  ;  2)  by  showing 
that  a  fleshly  birth  can  by  no  means  be  meant  by  the  yevvqOrjvat 
(vs.  6),  and  3)  that  this  is  a  thing  just  as  little  to  be  appre- 
hended by  the  ordinary  reason  as  is  an  analogous  jjrocess  in 
nature  (vs.  7,  8).  When  Nicodemus  shows  himself  still  always 
incapable  of  understanding  what  has  been  said,  Jesus  gives  his 
discourse  another  turn  :  he  takes  now  as  his  point  of  departure 
just  this  inability  to  understand  on  the  part  of  Nicodemus,  and  in 
contrast  herewith  that  which  he  had  to  reveal,  in  order  not  at  all 
to  let  himself  down  to  Nicodemus's  deficient  power  of  concep- 
tion, but,  on  the  contrary,  to  raise  himself  to  the  revelation  of 
the  divine  purpose  of  salvation  to  be  realized  in  him  (vs. 
10-15).  In  making  prominent,  to  his  shame,  namely,  Nicode- 
mus's lack  of  comprehension  as  a  lack  of  faith,  and  the  contrast 
between  his  official  position  and  his  insensibility,  and  in  setting 
over  against  Nicodemus's  insusceptibility  the  truth  and  the 
higher  certainty  of  his  own  witness,  Jesus  brings  Nicodemus  to 
feel,  by  an  argumentum  a  minori  ad  majus  (vs.  12,  cf.  vi.  61, 


212  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

62),  how  mean  his  faith's  perception  is,  since  he  not  even  un- 
derstands the  occurrences  that  are  taking  place  on  the  earth,  in 
man,  while  he  (Christ),  and  he  alone  (vs.  12,  13),  can  yet 
make  known  by  virtue  of  his  heavenly  origin  what  is  going  on 
in  heaven  —  the  divine  purposes.  What  are  these  lirovpavia  ? 
They  are  already  prefigured  in  the  brazen  serpent  (Num.  xxi. 
8.  9),  just  as,  namely,  Moses  lifted  up  upon  a  stake  the  brazen 
serpent  as  a  symbol  of  healing ;  so  must,  according  to  the  divine 
purpose,  the  Sou  of  Man  be  lifted  up  upon  the  cross,  in  order 
that  every  one  that  believes  in  him  may  have  eternallife.  The 
tertium  comparationis  is  not  only  the  external  lifting  up  upon 
the  cross,  but  the  healing  and  animation  through  the  one  lifted 
up  (cf.  Num.  xxi.  9).  From  this  point  the  discourse  takes 
anew  another  turn,  and  it  is  a  greatly  vexed  question,  whether 
what  follows  (vs.lG-21)  are  still  words  of  Jesus,  or  not  rather 
words  of  the  Evangelist.  But  this  question  is  of  interest  only  un- 
der the  pre-supposition  that  the  foregoing  cdntains  the  ipsissima 
verba  of  Jesus.  But  even  if  the  Evangelist  made  the  genuine 
words  of  Jesus  (cf.  vs."  3)  his  starting-point,  there  is  yet  no  doubt 
at  all,  but  that  he  passes  over  more  and  more  from  these  into 
his  own  reflection  and  representation.  The  question  here, 
therefore,  is  simply  this  :  What  is,  according  to  the  intention  of 
the  Evangelist  the  connection  of  vs.  1 6  if.  with  the  foregoing  ? 
Immediately  before  it  was  said,  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  to  be 
lifted  up  upon  the  cross,  and  that  through  faith  in  the  one 
lifted  U23  mankind  is  to  have  eternal  life.  This  bestowal  of  his 
Son  for  the  purpose  of  the  salvation  and  the  eternal  life  of  the 
world  is  now  shown  forth  as  an  act  of  love  on  the  part  of  God, 
and  to  this  is  annexed  the  explanation  that  the  Son  of  Man  has 
come  into  the  world  not,  as  the  Jewish  opinion  would  have  it, 
for  Messianic  penal  judgment,  but  for  the  saving  of  the  world 
(vs.  17).  A  Kpto-ts  certainly  is  to  be  accomplished  through 
him,  but  not  a  Kptatg  that  he  himself  makes,  but  one  that 
consists  in  the  revelation  of  those  that  are  incapable  of  salva- 
tion or  afraid  of  the  light  and  insincere,  and  those  that  rejoice 
in  the  light  and  are  sincere  (vs.  18-21).     This  entire  discourse 


COURSE   OP  THOUGHT   OF   AN  ENTIRE   SECTION.       213 

consists,  therefore,  of  three  parts-:  the  adclucinor  and  the  dis- Tlie  t^rea 

'  ^         „  .  P^'"^^  cf  the 

cussing  of  the  y^vvqOrjvai  avwdev  (vs.  3-9)  ;  the  advancing  from  discourse. 

the  eTriyua,  which  Tsicodemus  does  not  understand,  to  the 
iirovpdvLa  of  the  divine  purpose  of  salvation,  which  he  under- 
stands still  less  (vs.  10-15)  ;  and  the  representing  of  the  divine 
counsel  and  will  as  love,  and  judgment  only  in  so  far  as  the 
sincere  and  the  insincere  separate  spontaneously  in  the  "  light 
of  the  world  "  (vs.  16-21). 

51.   Examples  exhibiting  Greater  Difficulty. 

In  other  Johannean  discourses  the  course  of  thought  is  still 
more  difficult;    cf.  John  v.  19-47.     The  connection  and  the  John  v. 

19-47. 

occasion  are  as  follows :  The  healing  on  the  Sabbath  at  the  occasion, 
pool  of  Bethesda  has  just  taken  place,  and  is  condemned  by  the 
Jewish  guardians  of  the  law.  In  justification  of  himself,  Jesus 
replies  :  "  My  father  worketh  hitherto,  namely,  preserving  and 
restoring,  i.e.  this  maintaining  activity  of  his  knows-  no  Sabbath, 
and  so  — -  namely,  preserving  and  restoring  life  —  I  also  work.'* 
This  expression  having  been  understood  by  his  opponents  as  a 
presumptuous  usurpation  of  equality  with  God  on  his  part, 
there  follows  now  that  apologetico-polemic  discourse.  Jesus  Explana- 
begins  his  defence  by  declaring  that  his  activity  does  not  pro-  prerogative 
ceed  from  usurping  arbitrariness,  since  as  Son  he  can  do  noth- 
ing else  than  what  springs  from  filial  communion  with  the 
Father  (vs.  19,  20).  This  godlike  activity  of  the  Son  now  is 
in  no  way  limited  to  instrumental  action,  but  is  explained  (yap) 
by  the  fact  that  it  consists  in  Kpiv^iv  and  ^cooTrotctv,  which,  in- 
deed, are  the  most  peculiar  acts  of  the  Father,  and  it  is  added 
how  the  Kpiveiv  and  the  ^(oottouIv  on  the  part  of  the  Son  are  to 
be  understood  (vs.  21-27).  Since  now  this  claiming  of  divine 
prerogatives  might  awaken  indignant  astonishment,  the  speaker 
meets  this  astonishment  through  an  argumentum  a  minori  ad 
majus,  -which  is  at  the  same  time  an  argumentum  e  concessis, 
that  the  awakening  from  the  dead  and  the  final  judgment  will, 
indeed,  be  also  his  work  (vs.  28,  29).  From  this  point  the 
discourse  takes,  apparently,  a  more  general  turn,  yet  with  the 
thought  still  kept  in  view,  from  which  it  started  out,  so  that  — 


214         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER.^ 

instead  of  characterizing  his  aj:?tivity  more  definitely  —  only 
his  divine  trustworthiness  and  the  truth  of  his  testimony  are 
made  prominent  (vs.  30  ff.),  which  then,  from  vs.  37  onwards, 
gradually  passes  over  into  polemics  against  his  adversaries. 
Proof  of  hl8  His  trustworthiness  he  proves,  1)  through  the  witness  of  the 
thiness.  Father  (vs.  31,  32),  2)  through  the  witness  of  John  the 
Baptist,  which  even  they  must  know  and  recognize,  of  which, 
however,  he  had  no  need  for  himself  (33—3.3),  since  his  Ip-ya 
constitute  the  proper  proof  of  the  truth  of  his  testimony.  Here 
the  discourse  gradually  glides  over  from  the  apologetic  into  the 
polemic  (vs.  37  ff.).  This  polemics  consists  in  his  reproaching 
his  adversaries  with  ignorance  of  the  Father  who  bears  wit- 
ness for  the  Son  (vs.  37,  38),  ignorance  or  rather  a  dead  knowl- 
edge of  the  Scriptures  (vs.  39,  40),  and  especially  —  with  all 
their  zeal  for  God's  honor  —  deficiency  in  love  for  God,  and 
hence  in  ability  to  appreciate  purely  unselfish  speaking  and 
Conclusion,  acting  (vs.  41-44).  In  conclusion,  it  is  maintained  against 
them  that  precisely  3Ioses,  upon  whom  they  always  prop  them- 
selves, and  yet  in  whom,  at  bottom,  they  do  not  believe,  will 
No  clear  be  their  accuser  (vs.  45-47).  This  discourse  admits  of  no  res- 
divisions.  Qiution  into  different  j^arts,  but  exhibits  only  more  or  less 
observable  turns  ;  these  are  found  chiefly  in  vs.  30  ff.,  when  the 
apologetic  tone  passes  over  more  and  more  into  the  polemic, 
yet  so  that  in  vs.  30-36  the  apologetic  still  predominates,  in  vs. 
37  to  the  end,  the  polemic.  (On  the  fundamental  thought,  see 
below). 

52.    Apparent   Incongruities. 

But  the  course  of  thought  may  also  offer  a  peculiar  difficulty 

from  the  fact  that  the  discourse  at  the  end  seems  to  presuppose 

another  object  or  reference  to  other  persons  than  in  the  begin- 

JnhnviiL     ni^g  ;  cf.  John  viii.  31-44.     The  difficulty  here  may  be  moi-e 

^^~^'  accurately  defined  by  remarking,  that  while  the  discourse  at  its 

beginning  is  directed  to  believers  (cf.  vs.  30,  31),  in  its  progress 

and  at  its  end   it  is  directed  to  the  most  decided  opponents, 

without  any  intimation  having  been  given  of  a  change  of  the 

audience.     (We  confine  ourselves  to  vs.  31-44,  not  as  if  the 


COURSE   OF  THOUGHT  OF  AN   ENTIRE   SECTION.       215 

discourse  ended  with  vs.  44,  but  because  there  it  attains  to  its 
polemic  climax).  The  difficulty  would  be,  in  fact,  insupera- 
ble, if  we  did  not  know  that  Trio-reuetv  with  our  Evangelist  is  a 
very  elastic  idea,  cf.  ii.  23  f. :  x.  38;  xiv.  11.  At  all  events 
7n(TT€veiv  here  in  vs.  30  and  31  cannot  have  the  usual  pregnant 
meaning.  The  dispute  itself  first  receives  this  character  through 
the  opposition  of  the  Jews,  vs.  33  and  39.  The  beginning 
(vs.  31,  32)  contains  as  yet  nothing  polemic,  but  only  the  ex- 
hortation to  continue  in  his  word,  because  only  thus  will  they 
know  the  truth  that  makes  free,  etc.  Jesus,  therefore,  really 
regards  it  as  uncertain  whether  the  impression  of  his  words 
upon  these  TreTrto-TevKorc?  is  fundamental  and  permanent,  and 
presupposes  that,  although  now  believing,  they  may  not  yet 
have  known  the  trath  and  not  yet  have  been  emancipated 
thereby.  But  the  implication  that  they  are  first  to  become  free, 
is  injurious  to  their  theocratic  self-esteem,  and  this  injured 
national  pride  goes  so  far,  that  they  maintain,  in  the  face  of  all  the 
facts  of  the  case,  that  they  need  not  to  become  free,  since  they 
have  never  been  in  bondage.  Since  they  understand  bondage 
and  freedom  only  externally,  Jesus  explains  to  them  (vs. 
34-36)  what  kind  of  bondage  and  freedom  he  means.     But 

now  follows  the  difficult  expression:  .  .  .  ^riTdri  fjL€  dTroKTilvai,  The  difficult 
o      t  \  '         t    i    \        »  «>««         /r\      ii       1   ii  •        expression, 

on  o  Aoyo9  o  €ixo<;  ov  x^P^*-  ^^  v/jllv.      (Un  the  latter  expression 

cf.  §  29).  How  can  it  be  said  to  those  who  have  yet  at  least 
had  a  beginning  of  faith  ^T/retre  /xe  aTroKxetvat  ?  ^  According 
to  the  Evangelist  a  divine  knowledge,  penetrating  the  hearts 
of  men,  belongs  to  Jesus,  cf.  i.  48,  49 ;  ii.  24,  25.  By  virtue 
of  this  knowledge  he  knows  not  only  their  insusceptibility,  but 
also  the  consequences  thereof:  aversion  towards  that  which 
they  do  not  apprehend,  the  enhancing'  of  this  aversion  to  posi- 
tive hatred  and  to  murderous  thoughts ;  cf.  1  John  iii.  15.  Since, 
therefore,  the  Jews  had  appealed  to  their  derivation  from 
Abraham,  Jesus  holds  before  them  the  contradiction  between 

1  To  the  critic  it  is  very  convenient  here  to  say,  that  the  difficulty  is  to       • 
be  attril)uted  entirely  to  "  thoughtlessness"  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist; 
but  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  exegete  to  go  to  his  author  with  the  presup- 
position that  he  means  to  speali  rationally. 


216  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

their  sonship  to  Abraham  and  the  murderous  thoughts  slum- 
bering in  them,  and  refers  these  thoughts  to  another  pater- 
nity, which  he  does  not  yet  name,  but  still  keeps  in  petto,  vs. 

a  37-41.     Not   until    the   Jews    in    blunt   misunderstanding  of 

Jesus's  expression  represent  themselves  not  only  as  children  of 
Abraham,  but  also  as  children  of  God  (vs.  41),  does  he  have 
every  reason  to  show  them  the  contradiction,  much  greater  still, 
between  their  affirmed  filial  relation  to  God  and  their  dis- 
position. This  contradiction  consists,  first  of  all,  in  the  fact 
that  they  —  the  pretended  children  of  God  —  do  not  under- 
stand at  all  the  divine  words  of  Jesus  (vs.  42,  43),  a  failure  to 
understand  which  can  spring  only  from  opposition  to  God,  from 
the  devil ;  and  now  the  word  is  uttered,  which  he  has  been 
long  preparing  for ;  "  You  are  of  your  father  the  devil,"  etc. 
In  this  scene,  therefore,  it  is  shown  how  even  "  faith,"  if  the 
impure  motive  in  the  heart  is  discovered,  is  changed  into  its 
opposite. 

63.    Another   Example. 

Gal.ii.14-21      Another  example  of  disputed  course  of  thought  is  Gal.  ii. 

Statemont    14-21.     The  difficulty  consists  in  the  fact  that  —  while  vs.  14 

cuity.  and  15,  the  words  of  Paul  spoken  in  Antioch,  evidently  refer 

to  Peter  —  the  discourse  at  a  later  point  passes  over  entirely 
into  the  track  of  the  explanation  to  be  given  to  the  Galatians 
of  justification  through  faith,  without  the  slightest  break  being- 
visible.     We   must   disregard   entirely  the   dogmatic   interest 

Connection  which  now  and  then  has  mingled  in  the  explanation.  The 
connection,  an  understanding  of  which  is  here  of  special  impor- 
tance, is  as  follows :  Peter  had  visited  the  Gentile  Christian 
church  in  Antioch,  at  whose  head  Paul  and  Barnabas  stood, 
and  —  although  a  Jew  (vs.  14),  and  an  apostle  to  the  Jews 
(vs.  9)  —  yet  had  not  scrupled  to  sit  at  meat  with  the  Gentile 
Christians,  which  seems  to  have  been  a"  concession  on  his  part. 
But  now  came  emissaries  of  the  James  party  from  Jerusalem, 
rigorous  Judaists,  who  so  awed  Peter  with  their  Judaistic 
consistency,  that  he  withdrew  and  separated  himself  from  the 
Gentile  Christians.     Here  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jacobine  partj 


COURSE   OF   THOUCxHT    OP   AN   ENTIRE   SECTION.        217 

Peter's  inconsistency  and  vTroKpia-i^  had  consisted  in  the  fact 
that  he  had  associaied  with  the  Gentile  Christians,  Vvho  to  the7n 
were  essentially  Gentiles;  but  to  Paul  Peter's  inconsistency 
and  hypocrisy  consisted  in  the  fact,  that  he  now  separated 
himself  from  the  Gentile  Christians,  who  to  him  were  essen- 
tially Christians,  and  through  his  apostolic  authority  with  this 
scrupulous  separation  of  his  had  awed  even  Barnabas.  This  is 
the  situation,  an  understanding  of  which  is  necessary  for  the 

explanation  of  what  follows.     First  of  all,  now,  we  are  to  take  Theapos- 
,         .  ,.  -.  •  •  ^        J.-L.  trophe  to 

what  IS  undisputed    as  our  starting-pomt,  namely,  the    apos-  peter. 

trophe  to  Peter  (vs.  14,  15)  :  If  thou,  says  Paul,  though  a 
Jew,  livest  as  a  Gentile,  i.e.  sittest  at  meat  with  those  born 
Gentiles,  without  giving  place  to  Jewish  scruples,  with  what 
right  dost  thou  compel  (i.e.  morally,  through  thine  example) 
those  born  Gentiles  to  Judaize,  i.e.  to  believe,  that  the  distinc- 
tion between  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  the  observance  of  this  dis- 
tinction, is  the  principal  thing?  Now  we  expect  after  the 
negative  something  positive,  and  this  follows  in  fact ;  but  the 
question  is  whether  what  follows  belongs  to  the  address  to 
Peter  or  not.  If  it  does,  then  everything  that  follows  must 
also  be  understood  in  the  same  way,  since,  if  there  is  a  break 
anywhere,  it  is  between  vs.  14  and  15.  If  not,  then  the  apos- 
trophe to  Peter  seems  to  be  broken  oif  abruptly,  and  to  lack 
the  positive  filling  out.  First  of  all,  it  is  to  be  seen  which  of 
the  two  explanations  gives  the  better  sense.  Under  the  first  The  sense, 
presupposition  we  gain  from  vs.  15  and  16  the  following  sense:  suppositSn 
"^^e  — thou  and  I  — although  by  nature  Jews  (=  legally  J^JpV'fV^^- 
righteous),  and  not  Gentile  sinners,  yet  convinced,  that  man  is  ^'^^^'^• 
not  justified  by  means  of  the  works  of  the  law,  —  nay  even  we 
(emphatically  resuming) ,  i.e.  thou  and  I,  have  become  believers 
in  Christ,"  etc.  In  other  terms,  the  fact,  that  we  have  become 
believers  in  Christ,  is  proof  of  our  conviction,  that  justification 
springs  not  from  the  works  of  the  law  (as,  e.g.  the  observance 
of  the  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile  is  such  a  work).  A 
very  good  thought !  only  it.is  decisive  against  it  1)  that  vs. 
15  begins  without  any  conjunctions,  not  even  with  Se ;  2)  that 
19 


218  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE  INTERPRETER. 

we  have  to  bring  much  into  the  text ;  and  3)  that  vS.  17  is 
closely  connected  with  vs.  16,  and  likewise  what  follows  with  vs. 
17,  while  no  further  reference  at  all  appears  to  person  and  occa- 
The  sense  sion.  If  we  make  the  attempt  to  explain  the  discourse  under  the 
supposition  pre-supposition  that  vs.  15  ff.  no  longer  belong  to  the  discourse 
referYothe'  of  Paul  directed  to  Peter,  the  proposition  receives  a  general, 
Ga  atians.  j^^j.^  dogmatic  sense,  although  by  virtue  of  an  often  occurring 
fji€Ta(rx'r)fJiaTLaix6<s,  expressed  as  Paul's  personal  experience. 
This  explanation  has  in  its  favor,  1)  that  —  if  the  discourse 
of  Paul  to  Peter  is  to  be  broken  off  anywhere  —  here  is  the 
only  suitable  place  ;  2)  that  nothing  needs  to  be  brought 
into  the  proposition,  vs.  15  and  16,  and  3)  that  in  this  case 
vs.  17  ff.  are  connected  with  what  precedes.  Against  this  view, 
however,  is  always  the  abruptness  of  the  words  vs.  14,  and  the 
Athirdpos-  ^^^^^  always  undeniable  absence  of  a  clear  break.  But  there  is 
Bibihty.  g,.j|j  ^  third  possibility,  viz.  that  the  discourse  to  Peter  con- 
tinues to  vs.  21.  Thus  is  a  far  closer  connection  not  only 
between  vs.  14  and  15,  but  also  between  vs.  16  and  17ff.,  sup- 
posed ;  vs.  17  :  "  if  we  —  thou  and  I  —  who  seek  to  be  justi- 
fied througli  Christ,  ourselves  also  be  found  as  sinners  (i.e.  as 
Gentiles),  then  would  follow  the  blasphemous  proposition  that 
Christ  would  be  not  a  minister  of  righteousness,  but  a  minister 
of  sin.  Vs.  18  :  Since  if  I  set  up  again  as  steadfast  and  valid 
that  which  I  have  proved  to  be  invalid  (the  Mosaical  law),  I 
constitute  myself  a  transgressor,  i.e.  one  who  condemns  hi& 
former  actions."  Now  follows  in  vs.  19  and  20  an  argumen- 
tum  ex  eventu  :  ("  I  do  not  set  up  again  the  abolished  law),  for 
I  have  died  to  law,  but  so  that  a  new  life,  the  life  of  Christ  *in 
me,  has  begun.^  Vs.  21  :  I  do  not  set  aside  the  grace  of  God 
(which  would  be  the  case  if  I  set  up  the  law  again  as  efRcacious), 
for  if  righteousness  before  God  comes  from  the  observance  of 
the  law,  then  the  redeeming  and  justifying  death  of  Chiist  has 
been  in  vain  (groundless,  cf.  John  xv.  25  j  LXX,  Ps.  xxxiv. 
7)."     This  third  view  has  in  its  favor,  that       1)  a  clear  break 

i  The  Greek  literally  translated  reads:  "  For  I  tlirou;;h  law  died  to  law, 
that  I  might  live  to  God."  —  Tb. 


COUEvSE  OF,  THOUGHT   OF    AN   ENTIRE   SECTION.        219 

is  nowhere  to  be  shown,  and  2)  in  chap.  iii.  1  there  is  an 
energetic  resumption  of  the  address  to  the  Gulatians.  It  has 
against  it  1)  tliat  vs.  15-21,  but  particuUirly  vs.  17  ff.,  ex- 
hibits no  personal  reference  to  Peter,  and  has  not  at  all  the 
character  of  an  apostrophe.  The  most  probable  conclusion  is,  Conclusion 
therefore,  either  that  the  apostrophe  to  Peter  ends  with  vs.  14, 
or,  that  it  reaches  to  vs.  21,  in  which  latter  case  the  unobserved 
transition  to  the  didactic  tone  is  explicable  from  the  fact 
that  what  Paul  had  to  say  to  Peter  is  applicable  also  to  the 
Galatians. 

54.  Concluding  Remark. 
We  see,  accordingly,  there  are  examples  in  which  the  inquiry 
as  to  the  course  of  thought  designed  by  the  author  is  not  to  be 
answered  with  perfect  certainty.  In  that  case  the  exegete  has  to 
hold  himself  to  the  correct  method,  i.e.  to  the  following  rules :  1)  Rules. 
First  of  all  he  must  pay  close  attention  to  the  connection,  i.e. 
to  the  persons  who  come  into  consideration,  to  the  situation 
that  is  presupposed  in  the  disputable  discourse  ;  2)  attention 
must  be  paid  to  the  sections,  or  if  such  are  wanting,  to  the 
turns  of  the  discourse,  and  the  discourse  must  be  grouped  ac- 
cording to  these,  in  which  procedure  we  are  to  guard  against 
applying  categories  or  points  of  view  that  are  foreign  to  the 
author  ;  3)  If  the  discourse  shows  incongrufty  either  in  its 
contents  or  in  its  tone,  or  finally,  in  the  presupposed  situation, 
we  are  to  ascertain  whether  anywhere  a  break,  or  if  not,  a  turn 
of  discourse  enters,  and  where  such  is  found,  and  wherein  it 
consists  ;  4)  there  are,  finally,  cases  where,  even  after  the 
application  of  all  exegetical  means,  no  undisputed  result  can  be 
attained ;  in  such  cases  we  are  never  to  set  up  a  plausible  result 
as  if  it  were  quite  assured,  to  be  adhered  to  at  all  hazards,  but 
we  are  to  be  content  to  set  up  what  is  most  probable  under 
the  confirmation  appertaining  thereto. 


220         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

c)    The  Discovery  of  the  Intention  and  the  Fundamental 
Thought  of  a  Section. 

a)    The  Discovery  of  the  Fundamental  Tliought  of  a  Parable} 

55.    Errors  in  the  Explanation  of  Parables. 

Many  parables,  as,  e.g.  that  of  the  Sower,  that  of  the  Servant 
who  would  not  forgive  his  fellow-servant,  that  of  the  entrusted 
Talents,  that  of  the  Mustard-seed  and  the  Leaven,  are  clear 
enough.  Others,  however,  are  either  altogether  or  in  particular 
parts  of  more  disputed  interpretation,  or  have  received  erroneous 
Sources  of  interpretations.  The  most  important  blunders  in  the  explana- 
tion of  the  parables  are :  that  the  object  of  the  parable  is  deter- 
mined merely  according  to  one  part ;  that  the  explanation  of 
the  single  features  is  carried  too  far  (more  seldom  is  the  neg- 
lect of  such  a  feature)  ;  that  too  much  effort  has  been  made  to 
explain  the  personalities  of  a  parable  or  the  parable  itself  his- 
torically ;  that  men  have  not  been  content  with  the  clear  and 
simple  intention,  but  have  sought  behind  this  still  a  hidden 
The  inten-  sense.  These  and  other  errors  in  the  explanations  of  the  para- 
6!)iT^!i't  out  ^l^s  h^^'Q  their  ground  in  the  fact  that  the  intention  oi  the 
first  of  all.  parables  has  not  been  sought  out  first  of  all,  and  from  this  as 
a  basis  the  single  parts  and  features  explained.  Only  from  the 
intention  and  *  the  fundamental  thought,  moreover,  are  the 
difficulties  with  which  the  explanation  of  several  parables  is 
beset,  to  be  removed.  From  these  alone  is  the  question  to  be 
answered.  What  in  a  parable  belongs  to  the  doctrinal  contents, 
and  what  to  the  mere  delineation  ?  From  these  it  is  to  be 
determined  how  far  in  general  one  should  go  in  the  explanation 
of  a  parable,  and  what  oversteps  the  lawful  measure.  From 
this  is  light  to  be  gained  for  cases  in  which  there  seems  to  be 
a  gap  between  the  contents  of  the  simile  and  the  given  explan- 
ation, or  where  the  simile  itself  seems  to  be  ..devoid  of  unity. 

56.    Media  for  ascertaining  the  Drift, 

But  how  are  the  drift  and  the  fundamental   thought  of  a 
parable  to  be  ascertained  ?     An  important  help  is  the  state- 

1  Cf.  Trench,  Parables.  —  Tr. 


FUNDAMENTAL  THOUGHT  OF  A  PARABLE.     221 

merit  of  the  occasion,  where  there  is  such.  This  is  pre-emi-  Occasion, 
Dently  the  case  with  Luke,  who  not  only  gives  parables  with 
an  intimation  of  the  occasion,  which  are  wanting  with  the  other 
Evangelists,  as  the  account  of  the  merciful  Samaritan,  of  the 
Lazy  Friend,  who  yet  finally  yields  to  entreaty,  of  the  Judge 
and  the  poor  Widow,  of  the  Prodigal  Son  ;  but  also  furnishes 
occasions  of  parables  that  stand  in  Matthew  without  such  occa- 
sions, as  in  the  parables  of  the  Feast  to  which  many  were  invited 
and  that  of  the  Talents  entrusted  to  servants.  Another  im-  The  appen- 
portant  medium  of  explanation  is  either  the  interpretation  pretadoi" 
given,  or  in  default  of  such,  the  concluding  sentence.  An  indi-  cufdilir^"' 
cation  or  explanation  proper  is  found  in  the  case  of  the  parable  s®"^®^*^®* 
of  the  Sower,  in  that  of  the  Tares  among  the  Wheat ;  an  ex- 
planatory or  inferential  concluding  sentence  in  the  parable  of  the 
Lazy  Friend  (Luke  xi.  5-13),  of  the  Rich  Man,  whose  fields 
brought  forth  plentifully  (Luke  xii.  13-21),  of  the  Unjust  Stew- 
ard (Luke  xvi.  1  ff.),  of  the  Debtor  who  would  not  forgive  his 
fellow-servant  (Matt,  xviii.  23  if.),  of  the  Laborers  in  the  Vine- 
yard (Matt.  XX.  1  ff.),  of  the  Treacherous  Husbandmen  (Matt, 
xxi.  33  If.,  Par.),  of  the  Ten  Virgins  (Matt.  xxv.  1  ff.).  But 
cases  also  occur  where  neither  an  explanatory  connection  nor  an 
explanatory  concluding  aphorism  is  given,  as  in  the  account  of 
Dives  and  Lazarus  (Luke  xvi.  19  ff.),  not  to  mention  those 
that  are  clear  enough  in  themselves  ;  or  where  an  incongruous 
relation  seems  to  exist  between  the  appended  concluding  sen- 
tence and  the  parable  itself,  as  in  the  parable  of  the  Unjust 
Steward  (Luke  xvi.  1  ff.).     In  many  cases,  therefore,  we  are 

thrown  back  simply  upon  the  contents  of  the  parable  itself.    But  Contents  of 
,,  11-1  "^  -t  ^  the  parable 

in  all  cases  the  contents  themselves  are  an  essential  factor  for  itself. 

the  discovery  of  the  fundamental  thought,  along  with  the  con- 
nection, indeed,  or  the  occasion,  the  most  indispensable  factor. 
Where  it  is  possible,  all  three  helps  —  the  connection,  the 
contents,  and  the  concluding  explanation  —  must  be  applied. 
Where  one  or  the  other  of  these  is  v^  anting,  we  must,  at  least, 
neglect  no  one  of  the  means  that  are  given. 
19* 


222 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 


The  occa- 
sion given 
in  one  Gos- 
pel not.  ne- 
cessarily to 
bo  applied 
to  another. 

Parable  of 
the  Foast. 


Parable  of 
tlie  Itoyal 
Marriage. 


Paiable  of 
the  Talents. 


57.  Application  of  the  Media, 
How  these  media  of  explanation  are  to  be  applied  to  the 
discovery  of  the  fundamental  thought  a  few  examples  will 
show.  The  occasion  or  the  connection  is  chiefly  determinative, 
yet  regard  must  be  had  at  the  same  time  to  the  contents  and 
the  explanatory  application.  Yet  we  are  not  to  conclude  with- 
out further  examination  from  the  fact  that  Luke  furnishes,  e.g. 
an  occasion  for  the  parable  of  the  Feast  and  that  of  the  Talents, 
that  the  corresponding  j^arables  in  Matthew  have  the  same 
drift.  The  jDarable  of  the  Feast  (Luke  xiv.  lG-24),  accord- 
ing to  the  connection  in  Luke, — where  the  exhortation  precedes, 
not  to  invite  rich  friends  and  neighbors,  but  the  poor  and  the 
wretched, —  is  meant  to  show  how  the  same  arrangement  prevails 
in  the  kingdom  of  God,  that  precisely  the  needy  and  neglected, 
and  not  those  that  appear  to  be  especially  called  thereunto, 
become  partakers  of  the  good  things  of  the  house  of  God.  It 
is  otherwise  in  Matthew  in  the  corresponding  parable  of  the 
Royal  Marriage  (xxii.  1-16).  Here  the  parable  of  the  Treach- 
erous Husbandmen  and  the  threat  against  the  Jewish  theocrats, 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  away  from  them  and 
given  to  others,  had  preceded.  The  parable  agrees  with  that 
in  Luke  in  the  essential  feature,  that  those  first  called  show 
themselves  unworthy,  and  on  the  other  hand  that  the  lowly  and 
despised  become  partakers  of  the  feast.  But  while  in  Luke 
the  reference  is  to  the  distinction  between  rich  and  poor,  in 
Matthew  it  applies  more  definitely  to  the  contrast  between  the 
unworthy  theocrats  and  the  publicans  and  heathen.  But  the 
most  essential  difference  lies  in  the  fact  that  in  Matthew  there 
is  found  even  among  the  guests  of  the  Lord  an  unworthy  per- 
son. The  self-exclusion  of  those  first  called,  as  well  as  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  unworthy  guest,  illustrates  the  truth  spoken  as  a 
concluding  sentence :  Many  are  called,  few  are  chosen.  The 
parable  of  the  entrusted  Talents  stands  in  Matthew  (xxv. 
14-30)  without  especial  occasion,  merely  as  a  part  of  the 
eschatological  discourses,  but  in  Luke  (xix.  11-27)  an  occasion 
is  furnished,  viz.  that  much  people  followed  Jesus  on  his  jour- 


FUNDAMENTAL  THOUGHT  OF  A  PARABLE.     223 

ney  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem,  in  the  expectation  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  was  about  to  appear.  The  parable  which  in 
both  places  contains  the  general  doctrine,  that  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  fidelity  is  the  chief  thing,  has  in  Luke  the  more  definite 
intention,  to  show  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  reward  and 
luxury,  not  the  presence  of  carnal  hope,  but  fidelity  in  little 
things.  How  important  the  consideration  of  the  connection  is,  Parable  of 
in  conjunction  with  the  concluding  sentence,  may  be  illustrated  gal  Son. 
most  clearly  by  the  parable  of  the. Prodigal  Son  (Luke  xv. 
11-32).  Many  have  thought,  on  the  ground  of  the  first  part, 
that  the  "  mercy  of  God  towards  lost  sinners  "  must  be  taken 
as  the  fundamental  thought.  In  this  case  the  second  part  of 
the  parable  (vs.  25-32)  v/ould  be  a  mere  appendix,  which, 
especially  on  account  of  the  emphatic  conclusion,  '•. . .  we  should 
make  merry  and  be  glad  ;  for  this  thy  brother  was  dead,"  etc., 
is  extremely  improbable.  This  conclusion  clearly  refers  to  the 
beginning  and  the  occasion  (vs.  1,  2)  :  "Then  drew  near  unto 
Jesus  publicans  and  sinners ;  but  the  Pharisees  murmured." 
To  this  relate  the  two  little  parables  of  the  Lost  Sheep  and  of 
the  Penny,  together  with  the  applicatory  aphorism  ;  '•  There  is 
joy  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth."  And  that  the 
parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  relates  to  sinners  and  the  self- 
righteous  Pharisees,  —  and  has  no  other  fundamental  thought 
than  this  :  that  the  conversion  of  a  lost  brother  should  much 
more  be  made  a  matter  of  rejoicing^  as  the  father  rejoices  —  the 
coimection,  in  conjunction  with  the  concluding  sentence,  proves. 
Sometimes  interpreters  have  not  been  content  with  the  sense  spirituaiiz- 
of  a  parable  that  is  clearly  apparent,  but  have  thought  to  find  'Jjfg^^ ^'^'^*' 
behind  this  still  a  deeper  sense,  as  in  the  account  of  the  Com- 
passionate Samaritan  (Luke  x.  30-37).  The  one  who  fell  ^  ^-^^^^ 
among  thieves  has,  namely,  been  referred -to  those  that  have  Samaritan, 
fallen  under  the  destructive  power  of  sin,  the  priests  and  the 
Levites  to  the  law,  which,  has  no  help  for  the  unfortunate,  and 
the  Samaritan  to  Christ.  But  the '  connection  leaves  us  not  a 
moment  in  doubt  as  to  the  true  intention  of  the  narrative  :  A 
doctor  of  the  law,  having  inquired  of  Jesus  as  to   the  way 


224 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 


Cases  in 
•which  occa- 
sion and 
conni'Ction 
are  obscure. 
Parable 
of  the  La- 
borers. 


Parable 
of  the  Hus- 
bandmen. 


Parable  of 
the  Jioyal 
Marriage. 


Parable  of 
Dives  and 
Lazarus. 


to  eternal  life,  had,  in  reply  to  his  counter-question,  correctly 
defined  the  sum  of  the  law  as  love  to  God  and  one's  neighbor ; 
since,  now,  Jesus  had  replied  that  he  has  the  right  knowledge, 
and  that  if  he  will  also  carry  out  his  knowledge  into  action  he 
•will  become  partaker  of  the  eternal  life,  the  doctor  of  the  law, 
who  would  not  let  this,  confounding  answer  rest  upon  himself, 
rejoins:  This  is  the  question,  Who  is  the  neighbor  that  is  to 
be  loved  ?  The  parable  thus  has  no  other  intention  than  just 
to  show  this.  This  is  also  perfectly  confirmed  by  Jesus's  con- 
cluding question  :  "  Which  of  these  three  was  the  neighbor  of 
him  tl)ut  fell  among  thieves  ?  "  Not  always,  however,  is  the 
occasion  definite  and  the  connection  clear.  For  example,  the 
parable  of  the  Laborers  in  the  Vineyard  (Matt.  xx.  1-16)  is 
joined  with  the  preceding  simply  by  the  aphorism,  "  Many  first 
shall  be  last,"  etc.  (cf.  xix.  30  with  xx.  IG)  ;  but  this  sentence 
evidently  has  not  in  both  places  precisely  the  same  sense  :  tlie 
former  passage  relates  to  the  foregoing  promise,  and  contains  a 
limiting  definition  ;  the  latter  passage,  similar  in  language,  is,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  confirmation  of  what  was  said  in  the  parable, 
that  those  called  first  and  apparently  worthiest  shall  be  treated  in 
the  reckoning  as  the  last,  and  those  called  later  and  who  have  less 
claim  to  make  shall  be  treated  as  the  first.  The  parable  of  the 
Treacherous  Husbandmen  (Matt.  xxi.  33  ff.  Par.)  is  motived 
only  in  a  general  way  through  the  foregoing  discussion  witli  the 
Pharisees  ;  so  also-  the  parable  of  the  Royal  Marriage,  who;^e 
parallel  in  Luke  moreover  has  another  setting,  is  connected,  in- 
deed, by  means  of  the  foregoing  inferences  with  the  parable 
of  the  Treacherous  Husbandmen  ;  but  this  connection  is  only 
general,  and  refers  not  at  all  to  precisely  what  is  specific  in  the 
foregoing  parable.  Most  questionable  of  all  is  the  connection 
of  the  otherwise  difficult  account  of  the  Rich  ]Man  and  Poor 
Lazarus  (Luke  xvi.  19-31).  That  there  is  no  connection  with 
what  immediately  precedes  is  clear  as  noon-day.  To  find  any- 
thing corresponding  w^e  must  go  back  to  vs.  14  and  15.  The 
detached  aphorisms  vs.  16-18  may,  of  course,  be  passed  over, 
and  the  parable  may  be  annexed  to  vs.  15.     Li  tliis  case  we 


FUNDAMENTAL  THOUGHT  OF  A  PARABLE.     225 

get  the  following  connection  :  iVfter  Jesus  had  said  (vs.  13) 
that  men  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon,  the  rich  Pharisees, 
who  —  as  often  happened  —  knew  how  best  of  all  to  unite  the 
service  of  God  with  the  service  of  mammon,  turned  up  their 
noses  at  him,  the  pauper,  and  thought :  hinc  illae  lacrymae  ! 
In  order  now  to  put  a  damjDer  on  their  pride  of  wealth — which 
had  a  support  in  their  pretended  piety  —  and  their  spiritual 
pride — which  had  a  support  in  their  opulence  —  he  relates  this 
parable,  in  which  wealth  and  future  blessedness  are  brought 
into  the  sharpest  opposition.      Cf.  below. 

58.   Cases  of  Appended  Interpretation,  etc. 

Often  no  occasion  is  given,  not  even  any  connection  that 

could  be  of  service  to  the  explanation,  but,  indeed,  an  appended 

interpretation^  an  inferential  or  parenetic  concluding  sentence. 

We  rarely  find,  indeed,  a  statement  of  the  fundamental  thought,  Explana- 

,  T  .  ^  .     T.    .^      ,  ,       -,.         ^  *        tion  of  lead- 

but  rather  an  explanation  oi  mdividual  leadmg  features  or  per-  iug  features 

sonalities,  as  in  the  parable  of  the  Sower  and  the  Tares :  Matt 
xiii.  24-30  coll.  37-43.  But  from  the  explanation  of  these 
individual  features  the  fundamental  thought  is  to  be  derived, 
viz.  that  the  separation  of  the  good  and  the  bad  is  not  to  be 
rashly  accomplished  by  men,  but  is  to  be  first  accomplished  in 
the  time  of  the  consummation  of  all  things  throui^h  the  mes- 
sengers  of  God.  Often  a  brief,  inferential  or  exhortatory  con-  Concluding 
eluding  sentence  is  appended,  which,  indeed,  is  not  the  funda- 
mental thought  itself,  but  may  point  back  to  the  fundtimental 
thought,  as  in  the  parables  of  the  Treacherous  Husbandmen 
(Matt.  xxi.  33-39  Par.),  of  the  Ten  Virgins  (Matt.  xxv.  1-13),  Examples, 
of  the  Good  Samaritan  (Luke  x.  30-37),  which,  how^ever,  is 
already  sufficiently  motived  through  the  occasion  given  (see 
above) ;  and  also  in  the  parables  of  the  Laborers  in  the  Vine- 
yard (Matt.  XX.  1-16)  and  of  the  Royal  Marriage  (Matt.  xxii. 
1— IG).  But  not  unfrequently  this  concluding  sentence  ex- Partial  ex- 
presses not  the  ivliole  object  or  fundamental  thought  of  the 
parable  ;  e.g.  the  drift  of  the  parable  of  the  Fishing-net  (Matt. 
xiii.  47-50)  is  not  exhausted  by. the  thought,  that  at  the  end 
of  the  days  the  good  and  the  bad  shall  be  separated,  since  the 


226         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP   THE   INTERPRETER. 

mingling  of  the  good  and  the  evil  is  not  here,  as  in  the  par- 
able of  the  Tares,  accomplished  by  the  adversary,  but  by  the 
action  of  the  net,  i.e.  of  the  soul-winning  gospel  itself.  Neither 
is  the  drift  of  the  parable  of  the  Royal  Marriage  (Matt.  xxii. 
1-16)  exhausted  in  the  aphorism,  "Many  are  called,  few- 
are  chosen,"  since  the  parable  treats  not  of  calling  in  general, 
but  of  the  calling  to  the  good  things  and  joys  of  the  kingdom 
Seeming  in-  of  heaven.     Sometimes  the  concludinir  sentence  seems  incon- 

congruity.  ... 

gruous  with  the  intention  of  the  parable.  Cf.  the  concluding 
proposition  in  the  account  of  the  Good  Samaritan  (Luke  x. 
36),  "  Which  of  the  three  seems  to  thee  to  have  been  the  neigh- 
bor, of  him  that  fell  among  the  thieves  ?  "  We  should  rather 
■  expect  the  question  "  To  whom  among  the  three  is  he  that  fell 
among  the  thieves  the  neighbor?  "  For  the  question  of  the  law- 
yer was:  "  Who  then  is  my  neighbor,"  sc.  to  whom  am  I  required 
to  show  love  ?  But  this  sceptical  question  is  transmuted  by  Jesus 
into  a  practical  question  of  conscience,  as  if  he  meant  to  say : 
*'  Spend  no  time  in  asking  who  thy  neighbor  is,  but  act  —  like 
this  Samaritan  —  as  a  neighbor  !  Even  in  the  parable  of  the 
Ten  Virgins  (Matt.  xxv.  1-13),  the  concluding  exhortation  to 
watching  does  not  seem  entirely  in  accord  with  the  contents, 
since  not  the  foolish  alone  have  fallen  asleep,  but  also  the  wise. 
The  word  yprjyopeiTe  cannot  thus  refer  to  mere  waking,  but 
must  contain  a  negation  of  that  through  which  the  foolish  have 
differed  from  the  wise,  i.e.  forethought  and  readiness  must 
rather  be  meant  thereby  ;  yet  at  the  same  time,  doubtless,  refer- 
ence is  also  made  to  the  danger  of  sleeping  in  momentous 
Caspswhere  times.  But  what  if  several  applications  or  concluding  sentences 
plicaTions*  are  given,  as  in  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  (Luke  xvi. 
are  given.     i_^  q  p     j^^^.^   j^  j^  g.^jj  ^^,^^  ^£  ^jj  ^j^.^^  ^|^^  children  of  the 

world  are  wiser  than  the  children  of  the  light ;  secondly,  the 
exhortation  follows,  to  make  friends  with  the  unrighteous 
mammon  (vs.  9)  :  then  it  is  said,  he  that  is  faithful  in  little  is 
faithful  also  in  much  (vs.  10-12),  and  finally,  the  aphorism  is 
appended:  '-No  man  can  serve  two  masters"  (vs.  13),  which 
some  separate  from  what  .precedes.     Here  arises  the  question, 


FUNDAMENTAL  THOUGHT  OF  A  PARAtLE.     227 

which  among  these  appended  aphorisms  contains  the  true 
teaching  of  the  parable,  in  other  v/ords,  whether  the  parable 
is  intended  as  a  discussion  on  prudence  or  ou  fidelity  ;  if  the 
former^  how  is  the  exhortation  to  fidelity  related  to  this  ?  But 
what  is  particularly  offensive  is  the  fact  that  the  steward,  v/ho 
not  only  squandered  his  master's  goods,  but  also  through  open 
deceit  insinuated  himself  into  the  favor  of  his  master's  debtors, 
is  set  up  as  a  model  for  emulation.  If  only  the  context  con- 
tained something  explanatory,  or  the  contents  itself  were 
clearer  !  but  in  both  these  respects  we  are  left  completely  in 
the  dark  ;  for  with  regard  to  the  context,  there  is  no  logical 
connection  at  all  between  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  and 
the  one  under  discussion  ;  only  the  indication  (vs.  1)  that  the 
latter  is  addressed  to  the  disciples  is  a  hint  worthy,  of  notice. 
Of  the  appended  inferences,  the  first  (vs.  8). must  at  all  events 
be  most  immediately  connected  with  the  parable  itself,  and  must 
express  most  accurately  its  fundamental  thought,  while  the  fol- 
lowing contain  only  applications  and  inferences.  The  most 
immediate  thing  is  the  praise  oi  prudence,  and  in  this  the  un- 
just steward  is  certainly  given  to  the  disciples  as  a  model.  But 
the  stevr-ard  is  prudent  as  a  child  of  the  world ;  the  disciples, 
however,  are  to  be  prudent  as  children  of  the  light.  The  par- 
able contains  an  argumentum  e  contrario,  as  the  parable  of  the 
Unjust  Judge  and  the  Widow  (Luke  xviii.  1-8),  and  that  of  the 
Lazy  Friend  (Luke  xi.  off.),  and  the  meaning  intended  is: 
If  the  unjust  steward,  as  a  child  of  the  world,  is  praised  on 
account  of  his  jjrudence,  how  much  more  should  jou,just  stew- 
ards and  children  of  the  light,  be  prudent !  But  wherein 
consists  the  prudence  which  the  children  of  the  light  are  to 
practise  ?  First,  like  the  unjust  steward,  in  making  themselves 
friends  with  the  mammon,  i.e.  in  bestowing  this  for  benevolent 
objects  (vs.  9)  ;  secondly,  in  being  faithful  in  little  and  exter- 
nal things,  otherwise  than  the  unjust  steward,  because  only  then 
can  they  be  entrusted  also  wdth  great  and  spiritual  things  (vs. 
10-12).  How,  now,  is  vs.  13  connected?  '-Ye  will  show 
yourselves  faithful  in  little  as  in  great  things  only  by  not  serv- 


228         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

ing  two  mosters,  by  considering  little  things,  mammon,  only  as 
entrusted  to  your  keeping,  not  as  your  true  good,  but  him  that 
is  in  heaven." 

59.   The  Contents  of  the  Parable  itselfi 

The  fundamental  thought  is,  of  course,  never  to  be  derived 
from  the  mere  context,  nor  from  the  mere  concluding  applica- 
tion, but  always  at  the  same  time  from  the  contents  of  the  para- 
The  con-  hie  itself.  ■  Often  this  is  altogether  adequate,  as  in  the  i:)arables 
adequate,  of  the  New  Patches  and  the  Old  Garment,  of  the  New  Wine 
and  the  Old  Bottles,  of  the  Mustard-seed  and  the  Leaven 
(Matt.  xiii.  31-34),  of  the  Hidden  Treasure  and  the  Pearl 
(Matt.  xiii.  44-46),  of  the  Hard-hearted  Creditor  (Matt,  xviii. 
23-35),  of  the  Rich  Man  whose  field  was  productive  (Luke 
xii.  16-21),  of  the  Unfruitful  Fig-tree  (Luke  xiii.  6-9),  of  the 
Seed  that  grows  unobserved  (Mark  iv.  26-29),  of  the  Talents 
Apparent  entrusted  to  servants  (Matt.  xxv.  14-30).  But  nov/  and  then 
ousoS.  it  is  just  the  contents  that  makes  the  difficulty,  whether  it  be  that 
it  contains  features  that  seem  heterogeneous  or  that  tho  parable 
in  general  is  wanting  in  unity.  In  the  parable  of  the  Royal 
Marriac^e  in  Matthew,  features  occur  that  seem  to  be  forciij^n 
to  the  principal  drift  thereof,  viz.  that  the  guests  first  invited 
Dot  only  declined  the  invitation,  but  killed,  indeed,  the  servants, 
as  a  punishment  for  which  act  their  cities  are  burned  ;  so  also 
the  affair  of  the  guest  that  had  not  on  the  wedding  garment, — 
two  features  that  are  wanting  in  the  corresponding  paiable  in 
Luke.^  As  regards  the  first  feature,  which  evidently  reiers  to 
the  Jerusalemites,  murderers  of  the  prophets,  and  to  the 
destruction  of  the  city,  this  is  one  of  those  sharp  polemic 
thrusts  against  the  Jewish  hierarchs.  The  other  feature  would 
certainly  be  heterogeneous  if  the  intention  of  the  parable  were 
the  same  as  in  Luke  ;  but  while  in  Luke  the  fundamental 
thought  is  the  calling  of  the  lowly  and  despised,  in  Matthew 
the  fundamental  thought  is  this,  that  in  general  not  all  that  are 

I  In  such  oases  it  is  the  critic'a  work  to  prove  whether  two  different 
parables  have  not  flowed  tojrether.  But  the  exegete  as  such  lias  to  take 
what  lies  before  him,  and  explain  it  as  it  is. 


FUNDAMENTAL  THOUGHT  OF  A  PARABLE.     229 

called  to  the  good  things  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  chosen 
guests.  The  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  among  others,  Apparent 
appears  to  want  unity,  since  it  consists  evidently  of  two  parts,  unity, 
of  tvhich  the  first  (vs.  11-24)  relates  the  history  of  the  younger 
son,  and  the  second  (vs.  25-32)  that  of  the  elder  son.  Even 
although  the  fundamental  thought  is  that  expressed  in  vs.  32  (see 
above),  yet  the  younger  appears  to  be  the  principal  character. 
This  is  also  really  the  case,  and  this  also  contradicts  neither  the 
fundamental  thought  nor- the  unity  of  the  parable;  for  the  fun- 
damental idea  of  the  parable  is  not  ''  that  one  should  not  mur- 
mur about  the  brother  that  was  lost  and  wa6  found  again,"  but 
that  it  should  be  made  a  matter  of  rejoicing  ;  and  the  motive 
of  this  joy  is  given  in  the  first  part,  in  the  wretchedness  and 
the  conversion  of  the  lost  one.  Most  clearly  of  all  does  lack 
of  unity  appear  in  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Poor 
Lazarus  (Luke  xvi.  19-31),  and  this  is  not  the  least  among 
the  sundry  diiliculties  with  which  this  parable  is  beset.  Is  the 
lot  of  the  poor  man  and  that  of  the  rich  man  in  the  world  to 
come  the  principal  thing  ?  or  is  instruction  with  reference  to 
this  future  life  itself  the  essential  feature  (vs.  23-2 G)  ?  or  is 
the  intention  of  the  parable  expressed  in  the  conclusion  (vs. 
31)  ?  The  second  must  be  entirely  withdrawn,  since  every- 
thing that  is  said  about  the  future  life  in  a  descriptive  way,  is 
said  with  reference  to  the  lots  of  the  rich  man  and  the  poor 
man.  and  since  the  expression  vs.  25  has  a  somewhat  determin- 
ative and  exclusive  character.  There  remains,  therefore,  only 
the  question,  whether  the  true  intention  of  the  account  is  con- 
tained in  the  first  part  or  in  the  last.  The  latter  view  seems 
to  be  supported  by  the  concluding  sentence,  "  If  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  convinced  in  case 
one  should  rise  from  the  dead."  But  how  would  ihejirst  part 
be  related  to  this  ?  As  the  prayer  of  the  rich  man  says  that 
his  brothers  would  be  converted  through  a  miraculous  resur- 
rection, so  the  objection  of  Abraham  says  substantially, 
that  Moses  and  the  prophets  are  sufficient  for  conversion  and 
for  warning  against  the  place  of  torment  j  in  other  terms,  that 
20 


230  SINGLE    OPERATIONS   OF   THE    INTERPRETER. 

they  cannot  excuse  themselves  on  the  ground  of  ignorance  if 
the  same  fate  should  befall  them  as  their  brother.  But  what 
is  here  said  of  the  brothers  applies  to  the  rich  man  himself : 
neither  has  he  from  ignorance  and  undeservedly  come  into  the 
place  of  torment.  What  now  is  the  object  of  this  ?  In  the 
first  part  it  had  appeared  as  if  the  rich  man  undeservedly, 
merely  because  he  was  rich,  had  come  into  the  place  of  tor- 
ment; the  ethical  element  Vv'as  entirely  in  the  back-ground  ;  in 
the  second  part,  now,  this  is  brought  up,  and  the  fate  of  those 
that  are  in  this  case,  or  come  into  this  case,  is  shown  to  be 
deserved.  But  the  principal  thought  is  still  retribution,  as  ex- 
pressed in  vs.  25.  That  this  retribution,  however,  is  not  merely 
a  pa::sive  compensation,  but  a  compensation  conditioned  by 
failure  to  listen  to  the  word  of  God,  is  the  thought  of  the 
concluding  sentence. 

60.   Attention  to  the  Personalities. 

Only  after  the  intention  of  a  parable  has  been  ascertained, 
especially  in  difficult  cases,  can  we  infer  the  significance  of  the 
personalities,  as  well  as  answer  the  important  question  :    What 
in  a  parable  belongs  to  the  doctrinal  contents,  and  what  is  mere 
Personal!-     delineation  ?     The    personalities   are  difficult  only   in   a  few 
only  ill  a      cases.     In  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  it  is  clear  that  the 
younger    son    represents    "sinners,"    the    elder  son,  the  self- 
righteous  ;    in  the  parable  of  the  Laborers  in  the  Vineyard 
there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  those  first  called,  and  who  prop 
themselves  on    their  rights,  are  the  Jews,   and    those   called 
late  and  enjoying  freely  the  goods  of  the  Lord  are  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  that  in   the  parable  of  the  Royal  Marriage  those  first 
invited    and    malignant  refer  to  the  hierarchs,  the  poor  and 
neglected  afterwards  called,  to  the  publicans  and  sinners  and 
Pergonal-      to  the  Gcntiles,  is  also  perfectly  evident.     The  determination 
plmibie  of   oi  the  personalities  in  the  i)arable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  is 
Lteward.*^    more  difficult.     But   just   hero  much  error  has  arisen  and  the 

confusion  has  been  increased  by  the  circumstance,  that  —  in- 

•  *• 

stead  of  making  the  determination  of  the  fundamental  thought 
the  start!ng-po:ut  —  men  have    taken   as    the    startingrpoint 


FUNDAMENTAL  THOUGHT  OF  A  PARABLE.     231 

hypothetical  determinations  of  the  personalities.  Under  the 
assumption  of  the  intention  of  the  parable  given  above  the 
view  must  be  given  up  that  the  ttAovo-ios  is  God,  since  not  only 
is  the  word  TrAoro-tos  scarcely  ever  used  in  a  good  sense  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  the  oIkovoixo^  as  vl6<;  rov  aiojvos  tovtov  and 
the  guardian  of  the  /xa/tajva?  ttJs  dSiKiaq  cannot  be  represented 
as  the  steward  of  God.  One  of  the  most  important  and  most 
delicate  questions,  regarding  the  explanation  of  the  parable, 
is:  What  in  the  parables  belongo  to  the  doctrinal  contents  and  Doctrinal 

1  7  7  7-  .       o  .  1  .  1       coiiteiit.s, 

what  to  the  mere  delineation  f  —  a  question  that  is  not  to  be  and  deUne- 
T  T  .  1  •       •  1  ation. 

answered  according  to  mere  caprice  or  subjective  taste,  but  on 
the  ground  of  the  intention  of  the  parable.  No  passage  is  in  Parabie  of 
this  relation  more  instructive  than  that  of  the  Prodigal  Son.  gaison. 
The  fundamental  thought  that  one  should  rejoice  over  the 
brother  that  was  lost  and  is  found  again,  presupposes  the  going 
astray  and  the  being  found ;  and,  in  the  elaboration  of  the 
parable,  a  description  of  the  way  and  manner  of  both  these 
occurrences.  What,  therefore,  serves  to  illustrate,  how  a  man 
goes  astray,  belongs  to  the  doctrinal  contents:  thus  not  only 
the  departure  from  the  paternal  roof  and  the  squandering  of 
his  inheritance,  but  also  the  circumstance  that  just  when  he 
had  consumed  his  jDroperty  a  famine  sets  m,  and  that  he  is 
dependent  on  a  citizen  of  that  country,  and  has  to  keejo  the 
swine,  but  withal  suffers  bitter  hunger,  i.e.  that  the  sinner  be- 
fore he  can  persuade  himself  to  return  to  the  father  seeks  for 
help  in  the  world,  but  in  the  service  of  the  world  must  perform 
the  most  menial  service,  and  thereby  come  only  into  deeper  and 
deeper  distress,  is  an  integral  element  of  the  doctrinal  contents. 
To  the  return  and  the  being  found  belongs  the  fact,  that  only 
when  he  has  come  into  the  greatest  distress  he  meditates  upon 
his  condition  and  determines  to  return  to  the  father,  but  in  the 
feeling  of  his  un worthiness,  lays  claim  merely  to  the  position 
of  a  day  laborer  ;  to  this  also  belongs  the  fact  that  the  father 
goes  to  meet  him,  and  before  he  has  time  to  speak,  embraces 
him  in  his  arms.  Neither  is  the  circumstance  mere  delineation 
that  the   father   has  him  arrayed  iii  his  best   garments    and 


232         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

with  a  finger-ring,  for  it  belongs  to  tlie  father's  joy  over  him 
that  was  found  again,  that  lie  should  establisli  him  again  in 
all  his  filial  dignity.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  extreme 
Parable  of  perversion  to  refer  the  slaughtered  calf  to  Christ.  In  the  par- 
banamen.  able  of  the  Treacherous  Husbandmen,  it  is  not  a  mere  matter 
of  delineation,  when  it  is  said  that  the  possessor  of  the  vine- 
yard, before  he  delivered  it  to  the  husbandmen,  enclosed  it  with 
a  hedge  and  built  a  tower  upon  it,  since  it  is  thus  shown  that 
the  landlord  was  careful  that  the  vineyard  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  might  be  worked  in  all  security.  On  the  other  hand,. it 
would  be  going  too  far  to  refer  the  hedge  specially  to  the  law 
and  the  tower  to  prophecy,  since  it  only  lay  in  the  intention  of 
the  parable  to  tell  us  that  he  was  careful  for  the  security  and 
protection  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  not  through  what  means 

Parable  of    tliis  was  accomnlished.     In  the  parable  of  the  Hidden  Treasure 
the  Hidden  .     .  ^  r   -,   ^■  •  ^  ,  •     /■         i 

Treasure,      It  IS  not  a  mere  matter  oi  delmeation,  that  the  treasure  is  found 
accidental!?/,  and  that  it  waS*  discovered  by  the  finder  in  the 
Jield  in  which  he  icas  working,  as  also  that  he  must  buy  the 
Parable  of    land  in  order  to  come  into  possession  of  the  treasure.     On  the 
tard'-seed.     Other  hand,  it  would  be  a  perversion,  in  the  parable  of  the 
Mustard-seed,  to  refer  the  birds  that  nestle  in  the  tree  to  the 
converted  heathen,  while  they  are  merely  intended  as  an  illus- 
Parabie  of    tratioii  of  the  greatness  of  the  growth.     In  the  parable  of  the 
Meward.^'^    Uujust  Steward  it  is  not  a  mere  mattel'  of  delineation,  but  an 
essential  point,  that  the  oi*cwo/>ios  seeks  to  free  himself  from 
embarrassment,  and  that  the  means  that  he  embraces  have  for 
their  object  to  v/in  over  the  poor  as  the  possessors  of  the  "  ever- 
lasting habitations.''     But  the  special  way  and  manner  in  which 
he  seeks  to  win  them,  belongs  not  at  all  to  the  doctrinal  con- 
tents of  the  parable.     The  question,  What  belongs  to  the  doc- 
trine and  what  to  the  delineation  in  a  parable,  is,  therefore,  to 
Uuie  bs  answered  thus  :    What  ministers  to  the  fundamental  thought 

or  the  intention  of  a  parable  belongs  to  the  doctrincd  contents  ; 
but  what  does  not  minister  thereto  is  mere  delineation. 

61.     Piarables  Seeminsly  Oncomplete. 

JCow  and  then  a  purublc  still  leaves  room  for  a  question. 


FUNDAMENTAL  THOUGHT  OF  A  PARABLE.     233 

E.g.  in  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  the  wayside,  the  stony  ground, 
the  thorn  seeds,  and  the  good  soil  are  given  in  an  absolute 
way.  and  it  appears,  therefore,  as  if  insusceptibility,  inconstancy, 
etc.,  were  a  mere  fatality.  To  show  whether  and  how  far  Parable  of 
these  defecti¥e  conditions  are  deserved,  lay  not,  however,  in 
the  intention  of  the  parable.  These  conditions  for  Jesus,  the 
Sower,  Kar  i$.,  were  certainly  something  granted,  and  also  for 
the  hearers  they  had  become  fatality,  cf.  v.  14,  15  and  Par., 
which,  to  be  sure,  was  grounded  in  their  dispositions.  The  Parable  of 
concluding  sentence  of  the  parable  of  the  Royal  Marriage  Marriage. 
(Matt.  xxii.  16),  "  Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen,"  leaves 
unanswered  the  question  in  what  sense  the  word  eKXcKToC  is 
here  to  be  taken.  'The  word  itself  appears  to  point  to  an  orig- 
inal divine  purpose,  as  if  the  contemptuous  rejection  of  the  in- 
vitation, as  well  as  the  wedding  garment  wanting  to  one  of 
the  guests,  were  something  foreseen  and  designed  by  the  lord 
of  the  house.  But  this  is  incongruous  with  the  whole  contents 
of  the  parable  :  not  only  is  any  reference  of  this  kind  wanting 
in  the  whole  course  of  the  parable,  but  such  a  thought  would 
alter  the  whole  intention  thereof.  ,The  word  IkXcktol  is  rather 
to  be  understood  ex  eventu,  and  designates  those  that  have 
proved  themselves  worthy  of  the  calling.  The  same  sense 
also  would  this  aphorism  have  in  chap.  xx.  16,  where  the 
Textus  Receptus  and  Lachmann  have  it,  but  Tischendorf,  on  the 
authority  of  Cod.  Vat.,  Sinait.,  and  some  ether  witnesseF,  omits 
it.  With  reference  to  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  it  has  Parable  of 
often  been  wondered  why  the  acceptance  and  the  pardon  of  gJijon/" 
the  prodigal  son  is  not  represented  as  mediated  through  Christ. 
But  on  the  one  hand,  it  lay  outside  of  the  intention  of  the  par- 
able to  show  how,  and  in  what  way  this  pardon  took  place, 
since  merely  the  return  of  the  son  and  the  joy  of  the  father 
were  to  be  set  forth  ;  on  the  other  hand,  a  glance  at  the  occa- 
sion and  at  the  parables  of  the  Lost  Sheep  and  Penny,  teaches 
that  Jesus  regarded  the  coming  to  him  eo  ipso  as  a  coming  to 
the  Father,  and  his  acceptance  of  the  sinner  eo  ipso  as  the 
acceptance  of  the  sinner  on  the  part  of  the  Father.  In  gen- 
20* 


234  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

Kuie.  eral  it  may  be  observed,  that  what  seems  to  he  missing  in  a 

parable  is  either  to  be  understood  of  itself,  or  else  lies  without 
the  intention  of  the  parable. 

62>  The  Johannean  Parables. 

The  Johan-       There  still  remain  to  be  treated  the  altogether  differently 

bies,  aiiego-  formed  Johannean  parables.     These  differ  from  the  synoptic 

parables  in  the  fact  that  they  are  allegories,  i.e.  delineations, 

and  not  narratives,  and  that  they  have  for  their  contents  Christ 

Allegory  of  himself  in  relation  to  his  people.     The  clearest  of  all  is  the 

Shepiierd.    allegory  of  the  Good  Shepherd  (x.  11-18)  where  the  tertium 

comparationis  is  the  faithful  and  sacrificing  care  for  his  own. 

Christ  as      More  difficult   is    the   allegory   that   immediately  follows,  of 

of  the  Christ  as  the  ''  door  of  the  sheep."     These  are  regarded  as 

fillPPtt  " 

enclosed  m  a  fold,  therefore,  as  an  aggregate  whole.  But  the 
leadinsf  thought  is  the  difference  between  those  that  come  to 
the  shepherd's  office  in  the  right  way  and  those  that  come  in 
the  wrong  way  and  with  evil  intent.  Likewise,  in  the  parable  of 
the  Good  Shepherd,  the  difference  between  him  and  the  hire- 
ling is  the  principal  thought.  But  what  is  now  the  tertium 
comparationis  between  Christ  and  the  door  ?  Evidently,  Jesus 
means  by  the  cyw  not  so  much  his  person  as  his  disposition, 
Alleporyof  whicli  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  antithesis.  The  allegory  of 
and  its  the  Vine  and  its  Branches,  finally  (xv.  1-G),  is  distinguished  by 
the  fact,  that  the  relation  between  Christ  and  his  own  is  repre- 
sented not  merely  as  an  ethical  communion,  but  as  a  physical 
connection.  The  question  then  arises,  whetlier  this  phj'sical 
communion  is  meant  to  be  taken  Literally,  or  whether  it  is  only  a 
figurative  representation  of  the  ethical  communion.  But  there 
is  sufficient  ground  for  understanding  literally  that  essential 
connection  between  Christ  and  his  people.  In  this  we  are  con- 
firmed, namely,  by  the  allegory  itself;  for  if  we  understand 
this  connection  figuratively,  there  would  be  no  reason  why 
Jesus,  if  he  meant  to  speak  of  the  relation  between  himself  and 
his  disciples  would  have  delineated  this  relation  precisely  thus. 
The  parenetic  element  of  the  allegory  also  (vs.  4,  '-Abide  in 
me,"  etc.,  and  vs.  5,  "  Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing,"  just  as 


INTENTION    OF   OTHER   DOCTRINAL   SECTIONS.         235 

VS.  6)  points  to  just  this  kind  of  communion.  In  conjunction 
with  the  intention  of  the  allegory  to  be  derived  from  the  lan- 
guage itself,  the  fact  that  the  Evangelist  elsewhere  also,  though 
in  another  relation,  represents  this  union  as  a  mystical  one  (iv. 
14;  vi.  35,  48  ff.)j  l^as  the  same  bearing. 


ions. 


p)    The  Intention  of  other  Doctrinal  Sect 
63.   Method  of  Procedure. 

We  can  here  treat  only  of  such  passages  as  exhibit  more  or  Kind^of 
less  an  organic  whole.     But  whether  this  is  the  case  must,  after  Jrej^t^d^n^^ 
the  ascertainment  of  the  fundamental  thought  (§  49-54),  be 
the  first  question.     Neither  is  a  single  pervasive  fundamental 
thought  to  be  maintained  in  a  given  section  at   all  hazards, 
especially  if  we  are  compelled,  to  this  end,  to  apply  definitions 
of  thought  foreign  to  the  author  ;  nor  are  we  in  a  superficial 
manner  to  renounce  a  unity  of  the  fundamental  thought,  if  this 
does  not  readily  appear.     Thus  ^Iso  it  would  be  an  error,  if  Confovmd-_ 
the  critical  question,  e.g.  whether  Jesus  delivered  a  given  dis-  ^c^i^ajjf^^^ 
course  in  this  place,  in  this  manner,  and  under  these  circum-  questions, 
stances,  and   the  exegetical  question   as  to   the   sense  of  the 
discourse  in  question  should  be  confounded.     The  two  investi- 
gations are  rather  to  be  kept  distinct,  and  the  more   correct 
procedure  is,  to  begin  with  the  exegetical  investigation,  since 
in  most  cases  the  decision  of  the  critical  question  depends  .on 
the  sense  and  the  course  of  thought  of  the  discourse.     So  also 
-  it  is  one  question,  in  what  connection  and  in  what  form  Jesus 
originally  pronounced  a  discourse,  and  another  question  in  what 
connection  the  Evangelist  has  taken  it  and  reproduced  it.    For 
the  exegete  the  latter  question  is  the  first.     The  most  instruc-  Sermon^on 
tive  example  of  this  kind,  perhaps,  is  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(Matt,  v.-vii. ;  Luke  vi.  20  to  the  end).     Inasmuch  as  the  two 
Evangelists  display  so  many  and  so  great  differences  in  this 
passage,  in  the  first  instance  each  is  to-  be  explained  and  its 
sens/and  connection  studied  independently  of  the  other ;  only 
after  this  has  been  done  are  the  two  to  be  compared  with  each 
other  and  to  be  tested  according  to  their  mutual  relation.     The 


236  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

first  procedure  leads  to  the  result  that  Matthew,  even  though 
he  has  not  reproduced  the  discourse  of  Jesus  in  its  originally 
more  limited  compass,  but  in  conjunction  with  many  other  ex- 
pressions, yet  in  chap.  vii.  28,  29  he  seems  to  indicate  that  he 
means  to  represent  the  whole  as  a  unity  ;  that,  on  the  other 
hand,  LtXJce,  who  reproduces  the  discourse  later  and  in  a  shorter 
form,  but  by  no  means  in  a  better  connection,  has  also  meant 
to  give  this  as  one  discourse.  The  latter  procedure  shows  that 
the  two  discourses  agree  as  to  their  j^rincipal  contents,  and 
therefore,  were  originally  identical,  but  differ  as  to  time  and 
place,  and  also  as  to  the  details  of  the  contents.  It  follows, 
that  so  far  as  the  intention  and  fundamental  thought  are  con- 
cerned, the  two  discourses  need  not  be  identified.  How,  now,  is 
the  unity  of  intention  of  the  two  discourses  to  be  ascertained  ? 
Here,  as  everywhere,  we  are  to  proceed  by  way  of  induction, 
i.e.  we  must  ascend  from  the  particular  to  the  general.     In 

In  Matthew  Matthew  the  discourse  shows  the  following  course  of  thought: 
in  chap.  v.  3-12  it  is  shown  what  kind  of  men  have  part  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;  in  vs.  13—16  their  proper  relation  to  the 
woi'ld  is  given  ;  hereuj^on,  in  vs.  17-48,  the  law  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  exj^lained ;  in  chap.  vi.  1-18  the  pructice  of 
virtue  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  explained  according  to  its 
usual  categories,  almsgiving,  praying,  fasting ;  these  likewise 
are  given  in  vs.  19—3-4  according  to  their  fundamental  bearing. 
After,  now,  in  chap.  vii.  1-14,  several  ethical  commands  have 
been  given  in  loose  connection,  there  follows  (chap.  vii.  15-20) 
a  warning  against  false  prophets,  together  with  a  specification 
of  the  criterion  by  which  they  are  to  be  recognized ;  and  finally, 
vs.  21-27,  a  warning  against  self-delusicn,  together  with  a 
specification  of  the  criterion  by  which  genuine  and  spurious 
citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  may  be  distinguished.  Now 
so  far  as  this  whole  discourse  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  unity,  the 
fundamental  thought  can  only  be  in  general :  "  The  regulation 
of    the   kingdom  of  heaven,  in  contrast  with  the  evil  nature 

In  Luke.  and  morale  of  the  Jewish  world."  In  Luhe^  where  the  dis- 
course has  auothta-  setting  and  a  less  programmatic  significance, 


INTENTION  OF   OTHER  DOCTRINAL   SECTIONS.  237 

it  shows  the  following  course  of  thought :  in  chap.  \'i.  20-26 
we  have  a  declaration  of  the  beatitudes  and  the  woes  of  those 
that  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  of  tliose  that  do  not, 
respectively  ;  hereupon  (without  an  explanation  of  the  law) 
the  fundamental  law  of  love  according  to  its  various  relations 
is  given,  with  which  also  the  special  command,  "Judge  not  ..." 
(vs.  39),  is  fittingly  joined  ;  in  vs.  39-42  we  have  instruction  for 
those  that  would  teach  and  guide  others ;  in  vs.  43-47  the  cri- 
teria of  the  aya96s  and  the  7rov'r]p6<;  as  a  transition  to  the  parable 
(agreeing  with  that  in  Matthew)  of  the  house  built  on  the 
sand  and  that  built  on  a  rock  (vs.  48,  41i).  The  fundamental 
drift  is  here  similar,  indeed,  to  that  in  Matthew,  yet  there  are 
differences  by  no  means  insignificant :  a)  In  Luke  not  only  Differences, 
are  several  macarisms  wanting,  but  also  the  assurance  of  the 
eternal  validity  of  the  law,  the  interpretation  of  the  law 
directed  against  the  Pharisaic  externality,  the  whole  exhibition 
of  the  right  practice  of  virtue,  together  with  the  warning  against 
earthly  striving  and  earthly  care,  contrasted  with  the  Pharisaic 
hypocrisy  ;  furthermore,  some  aphorisms,  as  that  of  the  broad 
and  the  narrow  gate,  and  finally  the  warning  against  false 
prophets  ;  but  what  is  most  essential  is  the  absence  of  the 
polemics  against  the  Pharisaic  interpretation  of  the  law  and 
practice  of  virtue.  b)  Luke  has  some  things  that  are  want- 
ing in  Matthew,  the  "  woe "  against  the  rich  and  prosper- 
ous of  this  world ;  furthermore,  the  aphorisms,  "  Can  a  blind 
man  be  a  guide  for  the  blind  ?  "  etc.,  and  "  The  disciple  is  not 
above  the  teacher,"  etc.  (vs.  39,  40),  as  also  "The  good  man 
out  of  the  good  treasury  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  good  ..." 
(vs.  45),  a  saying  that  is  found  in  Matthew  in  an  altogether 
different  discourse  (xii.  34,  35).  c)  Much  that  both  have  in 
common  is  otherwise  in  Luke  than  in  Matthew  :  through  the 
absence  of  the  interpretation  of  the  law,  the  command  of  love 
to  enemies  and  the  forbidding  of  revenge  receives  a  different 
coloring  from  that  in  Matthew  ;  not  only  are  several  aphorisms 
misplaced,  as  the  command  of  love  to  enemies  and  the  forbid- 
ding cf  vengeance,  but  several  aphorisms  stand  in  a  different 


238 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 


Result. 


Nature 
of  the 
difiiculty. 


John  vi. 
2G-69. 


connection,  as,  e.g.  "Judge  not"  (vs.  37),  "Good  measure, 
pressed  down  . . .  shall  men  give  to  you,  and  with  what  measure 
ye  mete  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again  "  (vs.  38),  the  aphor- 
ism of  the  mote  and  the  beam  (vs.  41,  42),  and  the  figure  of 
the  good  and  evil  tree  (vs.  43-45),  which  here  is  not  connected 
with  the  warning  against  the  false  prophets.  If  we  add  further 
that  the  discourse  in  Luke  contains  two  very  noticeable  breaks, 
viz.  between  vs.  26  and  27,  and  between  vs.  38  and  39,  we 
arrive  at  the  result  that  the  two  discourses  ai-e,  indeed,  identi- 
cal at  bottom,  cLihQ  agreement  of  the  beginning,  the  conclu- 
sion, and  the  most  essential  elements  of  the  contents  ;  but  yet 
that,  in  consideration  of  the  different  temporal  setting  and 
situation  of  the  discourse,  and  in  consideration  of  the  many  dif- 
ferences, the  intention  cannot  he  the  same  ;  that  the  discourse 
in  Luke,  1)  has  not  the  programmatic  character  that  it  has 
in  Matthew,  2)  does  not  contain  polemics  against  Pharisa- 
ism, and  on  the  other  hand,  3)  gives  a  more  exclusively 
positive  statement  of  the  rules  that  jorevail  in  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

64.  Intention  of  the  Johannean  Discourses. 
The  work  is  more  simj^le  when  we  have  to  do  with  a  dis- 
course without  parallels,  as,  e.g.  the  Johannean  discourses}  The 
difficulty  is  here  of  a  different  kind,  and  consists  essentially  in 
the  fact  that  the  connection  of  the  thoughts  is  so  indistinct  and 
seemingly  accidental  (cf.  §§  49-54),  that  we  may  sometimes  be 
in  doubt  as  to  a  pervading  thought.  Most  certainly  such  a  per- 
vading thought  is  to  be  followed  in  the  discourse,  chap.  vi.  26-59. 
The  connection  of  the  discourse  is  as  follows :  After  the  mirac- 
ulous feeding  Jesus  had  withdrawn  himself  from  the  pressure  of 
the  people,  and  had  betaken  himself  to  the  other  (the  western) 
shore  of  the  sea ;  but  the  people  sought  him,  and  found  liim  at 
last,  after  his  arrival  at  Capernaum.  Yet  Jesus,  discerning  the 
sensuous  motive  of  this  throng,  refers  those  that  have  come  to  a 


1  Cf.  Bei/achlarj,  Bcitrazc  zur  Johannaishen  Frage,  reprinted  from  the 
"  Thcol.  Studicn  und  Kritikcn,"  1876;  Lutharclt,  The  Authenticity  of  the 
Fourih  Gospel ;  and  Godet,  Coramentary  on  John.  —  Tb. 


INTENTION   OF   OTHER   DOCTRINAL  SECTIONS.  239 

higher  (spiritual)   feast :  ipyd^^aOi  firj  rrjv  Pp^<Tiv  rrjv  AttoXXv- 
fjiiirqv,  d/Utt  Tr]v  ^p^aiv  Trjv  fievovaav  ck  C^rjv  atwvtov  .  .  .  (vs.  27. 
ipyd^eaOaL  to  obtain,  to   procure ;  cf.  Theod.  Prov.  xxi.  6  :  6 
ipya^6pievo^  (^cravpovs,  Herod,  i.  24  at  the  beginning  :  epyacra- 
fxevov  xPW^To.)'     The  discourse  thus  takes  as  its  starting-point 
the  exhortation  to  strive  after  the  enduring  feast.     The  same 
bearing  has  the  people's  challenge  to  hini  to  perform  a  (rr]p.elov 
like  the  Mosaic  sign  of  the  manna  in  the  wilderness.     This 
gives  to  the  discourse  of  Jesus  a  definite  bearing  on  the  idea  of 
the  heavenly  bread  (vs.  32,  33).     This  being  the  occasioning 
connection,   let   us   look    further,    at   the  course   of  thought. 
This  is  determined  partly  by  the  interlocutions  and  objections 
of  the  people.    Jesus  having  pointed  the  people  to  the  true  bread 
of  heaven,  they  ansvrer  :  Kvpte,  ttcLvtot^  So?  ^/xZv  rov  aprov  tovtov. 
Expressing,  as  they  do,  by  these  words  a  longing  for  the  bread 
of  heaven,  the  answer  of  Jesus  is  partly  a  more  definite  ex- 
planation (vs.  35),  and  partly  an  encouragement  (vs.  37-40). 
But  the  words  of  Jesus,  through  the  prospect  of  eternal  life, 
conditioned  by  faith  in  his  person,  awaken  offence  and  con- 
tradiction on  the  part  of  the  Jews   (vs.  41,  42).     They  are 
especially  indignant  at   the  assertion  of  his  heavenly  origin. 
But   Jesus    pays   no   attention    whatever  to  this  offence,  but 
holds    himself    simply    to    the    fact    of    their   unbelief,   and 
shows  that  faith  in  him  is  indeed  a  divine  work,  and  is  con- 
ditioned by  the  secret  draiulng  of  the  Father  in  tlie  hearts  of 
men  (vs.  44  f.),  but  he  returns  to  the  principal  thought,  that  he 
is  the  bread  of  life,  yet  now  wiih  the  enhancing  definition  that 
his  flesh,  which  he  sacrifices  for  the  world,  is  this  bread  of  life 
(vs.  50,  51).     Yet  just  this  enhancing  definition  must  have  been 
absolutely  unmtelligible  to  the  Jews,  who  had  not  even  under- 
stood the  general  statement  (vs.  52).    But  his  discourse,  instead 
of  condescending  to  their  capacities,  in  order  to  remove  their 
offence,  ascends  —  after  the  Johannean  manner  —  ever  higher 
and  higher,  and  ever  becomes  more  and  more  mysterious  (vs. 
53-57),  until  in  the  conclusion  (vs.  58)  it  again  expresses  the 
fundamental  thought :  "  This  is  the  bread  that  came  down  from 


240  SINGLE  OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPHETEIl. 

heaven,"  etc.  Accordingly,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  tlial  the 
thouglit :  "  Christ  is  the  true  bread  of  heaven,"  is  the  funda- 
mental thought  of  the  discourse.  Nevertheless,  we  may  still 
Specialcon-  call  attention  to  the  following  special  considerations  :  1)  that, 
although  the  6)(\oi  have  sought  him  all  day  long  from  thank- 
fulness for  the  miraculous  feeding,  and  rejoice  to  have  found 
him  at  last,  Jesus  yet  treats  them  as  unbelievers,  i.e.  as  those 
that  have  come  to  him  not  even  for  the  sake  of  the  signs,  to 
say  nothing  of  a  higher  motive ;  he  seems,  therefore,  to  value 
the  thankfulness  for  the  appeasing  of  their  hunger  less  highly 
than  belief  for  the  sake  of  the  signs,  which  elsewhere  he  values 
by  no  means  highly  (vs.  26  f.,  36  coll.  ii.  23-25  ;  iv.  48).  2) 
The  idea  that  he  is  the  true  bread  of  heaven  is  contrasted  with 
the  historical  conception  of  the  manna  in  the  wilderness,  as  the 
pretended  bread  from  heaven,  and,  indeed,  in  such  a  way  that 
God,  the  giver  of  the  one,  is  contrasted  with  Moses,  the  giver 
of  the  other  (vs.  32-58).  3)  The  idea  that  his  flesh,  sacrificed 
in  death,  is  the  true  food  of  heaven  is,  indeed,  the  idea  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  while  our  Evangelist,  as  is  well-known,  has  no 
account  of  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  —  an  idea  which  his- 
torically considered  must  have  been  at  that  time  absolutely  in- 
comprehensible. We  have  to  do  here  merely  with  logical  exe- 
gesis, not  with  criticism.  From  this  point  of  view  the  following 
is  to  be  said :  ad  1)  From  this  feature,  as  from  others,  (cf.  espe- 
cially, iv.  47,  48),  the  altogether  different  idea  of  faith  that 
prevails  in  the  Gospel  of  John  is  apparent :  it  is  m.ore  intel- 
lectualistic,  or,  more  strictly,  more  intuitive^  than  in  the  Sy- 
noptics. Ad  2)  We  get  an  understanding  of  the  contrast 
between  the  historico-empirical  and  the  ideal  conception  of  the 
heavenly  bread  first  from  Philo,  who  applies  the  manna  in  the 
wilderness  to  tKc  Logos  and  declares  the  Logos  to  be  the  true 
bread  of  life  (De  Profugis,  ed.  Mang.  I.  566)  :  i^L^a)(6rja-ovTai 

hi    VTiO     TOV     OiOTTpOTTOV     OTL    OVTOS     IdTLV     6     a/3T0S,   OV  kSoiKe   fCVptOS 

avTotc  (^ttyeti/."  "  Tt's  ovv  o  apro<i ;  cittc.  '*  Tovro,  cfirjai,  to 
prjaa  o  crvvf.ra^€.  Kvptos."  If  now  Philo  declares  the  Logos  to  be 
the  true  munna,  if  according  to  Jolm  Christ  is  the  Logos,  and. 


INTENTION   OF   OTHER   DOCTRINAL   SECTIONS.  241 

if  the  Johannean  Christ  —  in  reference  to  the  manna  —  calls 
himself  the  true  bread  of  heaven,  we  shall  not  go  astray  if  we 
find  here  the  application  of  the  Alexandrine  idea  of  the  Logos 
to  Christ.^       Ad  3)  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  Evangelist 
—  in  view  of  the  Judaizing  paschal  and  eucharistic  festivals  — 
meant  to  divest  the  idea  of  the  eucharist  of  its  historico-empir- 
ical  form,  and  to  idealize  it.     This  idea,  which  must  be  com- 
pletely unintelligible  to  the  ©xXos,  is  not  historical,  but  is  expli- 
cable from  the  intention  of  the  Evangelist,  to  which  precisely 
the  showkig  forth  of  the  contrast  between  the  knowledge  of 
Jesus  and  the  dullness  of  the  people  (we  call  to  mind  also  the 
discussion  with  ^^icodemus)  essentially  belongs.^ . 
65.   Intention  of  the  Epistles. 
The  consideration  of  the  connection  is  of  decisive  weight  for  importance 
the  ascertaining  of  the  intention  of  a  passage  in  quite  an  espe-  t/ou?^'^^°" 
cial  manner  in  the  New  Testament  Epistles,  since  here  the  in- 
dividual sections  form  in  most  instances  so  integral  a  part  of 
the  whole,  that  not  only  what  immediately  precedes,  but  not 
unfrequently  the  design  and  economy  of  the  Epistle,  have  to  be 

1  This  observation  would  more  naturally  come  into  the  province  of  the 
Real-Explanation,  but  this  irpo\7]\pis  was  here  unavoidable.  [See  on  the 
Philonian  doctrine  of  the  Lo<xos,  Bei/schla a,  as  above;  Bleel:,  Introduction 
to  N.  T.,  section  on  the  Gospel  according  to  John;  Dorner,  Person  of 
Christ,  Vol.  i.  —  Tn.]. 

2  This  is  one  of  the  instances  in  which  our  author  displays  a  leaning 
towards  the  position  of  Baur.  The  conclusion  reached  appears  to  rest 
upon  at  least  three  unwarranted  assumptions:  1)  that  the  Philonian 
and  the  Johannean  doctrines  of  the  Lo.iros  are  identical.  The  contrary 
has  been  most  clearly  shown  by  Dorner,  Beyschlag,  and  others;  2)  that 
in  his  brief  narrative  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  has  intended  to  set 
forth  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  discourses  that  he  attributes 
to  Christ,  or  even  the  v.diole  of  the  discourses  as  delivered  If  we  knew 
more  of  the  circum.stances  we  should  doubtless  understand  better  than  we 
do  why  Jesus  spoke  in  each  instance  just  as  he  did;  3)  that  it  is  incom- 
j)atible  with  Christ's  nature  to  speak  to  men  with  any  other  view  than  that 
they  should  at  qnce  understand  his  teachinj^s  in  all  their  height  and  depth. 
His  object  may  have  been,  and  doubtless  was  in  many  cases,  to  arouse  the 
dormant  faculties  of  men's  souls,  to  induce  thought,  to  awaken  curiosity; 
and  who  shall  say  that  it  was  beneath  the  dignity  of  Christ  to  utter  things 
mysterious,  even  inromprchcnsiblc,  as  a  means  to  an  end  ?  —  Te. 

21 


212         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

A  difficulty,  taken  into  account.  But  here  enters  a  difficulty :  on  the  one 
hand,  the  rule  holds' good,  that  the  exegete  must  take  as  his 
starting-point  the  understanding  of  the  details  in  order  to  arriv6 
at  an  understanding  of  the  whole  ;  but  here  the  requirement  is 
set  up,  that  the  whole  must  first  be  understood  in  order  to 

A  solution,  attain  to  the  understanding  of  the  individual  parts.  The  solu- 
tion of  this  contradiction  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  under- 
standing of  the  whole,  as  of  the  individual  parts,  is  only  to  be 
attained  through  repeated  operations,  and  that — though  we 
must  begin  in  every  case  with  the  first  method  —  a  succeeding 
procedure  must  have  reference  to  the  reverse.  These  two 
methods, /rom  the  parts  to  the  whole  and  from  the  whole  to  the 
parts,  must  often  be  repeated,  and  must  supplement  each  other. 
But  if  it  should  be  urged  against  the  first  demand,  that  in  the 
beginning  we  are  to  take  as  our  starting-point  the  individual 
parts,  that  indeed  in  the  higher  schools  the  teacher  begins  with 
imparting  to  his  pupils  a  general  idea  of  the  author  and  his 
work  before  he  commences  with  them  the  reading  of  the  work 
itself  ;  it  may  be  replied  :  1)  that  the  teacher  himself  must 

have  arrived  at  the  general  idea  in  the  first  way,  before  he 
can  impart  it  to  his  pupils,  and  2)  that  the  pupil  also,  if 
at  a  later  period  he  do  not  merely  swear  to  the  words  of  the 
master,  but  wishes  to  gain  an  independent  knowledge  of  the 
whole,  must  arrive  at  this  in  the  same  way,  from  below  up- 
wards, in  order  to  get  the  idea  received  from  the  teacher 
either  confirmed  or  corrected.  But  the  knowledge  of  the  whole 
attained  in  this  way  must  now,  in  turn,  be  the  medium  for 
arriving  at  an  insight  into  the  meaning  of  the  individual  parts. 

66.    An  Important  Example  (Rom.  vii.  7-24). 

"We  illustrate  what  has  been  said  by  one  of  the  most  vexed 

Statement    examples,  viz.  by  Rom.  vii.  7-24.     The  question  is,  whether 

tion.^^  ^"^^"  P^ul  meant  in  this  section   to  describe  the  condition  of  the 

regenerate  or  that   of   the    unregenerate ;    or    more    exactly, 

whether   the   eyw  is  the  Christian   cyw   or  the  ante-Christian. 

Ante-Au-     Almost  all  the  ante-Augustinian  theologians,  with  the  excep- 

fiew."^*°     tion  of  Methodius,  regarded  this  section  as  a  description  of  the 


INTENTION   OF   OTHER   DOCTRINAL   SECTIONS.  243 

ante-Christmn  condition  of  Paul.     Nay,  Augustine  and  Jerome 

themselves,  before  the  Pelagian  controversy,  were  of  the  same 

opinion.     Abelard,  Thos.  Aquinas,  and  Erasmus  followed  these. 

But   in    the    controversy  with   the  Pelagians   Augustine  and  j^J^^fj^^'^ 

Jerome  changed  their  opinion,  and  explained  the  passage  of  the 

condition  of  the  regenerate.     Most  of    the  Western  teachers 

followed  now  the  authority  of  these  great  Fathers,  especially 

the   Reformers   and    the    old  Protestant    exegetes.     Only  W.  Modem  de- 

'^  "^  fenders  of 

Musculus,  Castellio,  F.  Socinus,  and  the  Arminians  were  of  a  the  Ante- 

,       o      •    •  1  Augustin- 

different  opinion.  But  just  in  opposition  to  the  bocinians  atscl  ian  view, 
the  Arminians,  the  Augustinian  view  was  held  so  much  the 
more  zealously,  and  this  view  always  held  its  place  as  the 
orthodox  view,  even  in  more  recent  times,  against  the  Ration- 
alists. But  not  only  Socinians,  Arminians,  and  Rationalists, 
but  also  A.  H.  Franke,  G.  Arnold,  Buddeus,  and  Bengel  did 
homage  to  the  ante-Augustinian  view.  This  view  now  grew 
more  and  more  in  favor,  the  more  exegesis  was  freed  from  the 
fetters  of  dogmatics  and  was  established  upon  correct  hermenu- 
tical  principles,  and  was  adopted  and  defended  by  the  most  ap- 
proved exegetes,  such  as"  De  Wette,  Riickert,  Baumgarten- 
Crusius,  Meyer,  Tholuck,  Fritzsche,  van  Ilengel.     Only  in  the  Eecent  de- 

1         1  1  1  T  1      T  fenders  of 

most  recent  time  the  theoloj^ians  related  to  the  old  orthodoxy,  the  Augus- 
^    J;.  -  ,,  -  •   n      T->i  •!'      •    tinianview. 

Delitzsch  (not  Ilofmann),  Kohlbriigge,  and  especially  Philippi, 

have  returned  to  the  Ausoastinian  explanation.     The  grounds  rhiiippi's 

.  p  n  \  argument, 

for  the  latter,  according  to  Philippi,  are  as  follows  :         a)   vs. 

7-13  evidently  describe  the  condition  of  the  unregenerate,  as 
is  clear  from  the  preterite ;  but  from  vs.  14  onwards,  the  dis- 
course passes  over  into  the  present,  and  describes,  therefore,  a 
present  condition  :  /3)  what  is  said  in  vs.  17  (avfj.(j>rjixL  tw 
Vo/AO)),  in  vs.  19  (ou  yap  6  OiXw  ttolw  ayaOov  .  .  .),  and  especially 
in  vs.  22  (o-wrySo/xat  t(3  vofxia  . . .),  an  unregenerate  man  could 
not  say  of  himself;  y)  vs.  25  contradicts  completely  the 
view  of  the  unregenerate  condition  {evxa-pia-TC)  tw  Oeu)  . . .);  8) 
Gal.  V.  17  is  evidently  a  parallel  passage  to  the  one  under  dis- 
cussion, and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  converted  condition 
is  meant.     This  is  the  state  and  the  interest  of  the  question. 


244         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 
How  to  at-   In  what  way  now  are  we  to  arrive  at  the  right  result  ?         1) 

tain  to  the     „  *^  .  .  .         , 

true  result.  Through  an  examination  of  the  individual  parts,  especially  of 
Uon'of^h'e  ^^^^  exegetical  factors  on  which  stress  is  laid  by  those  that 
details.  maintain  the  Augustinian  view.  The  first  question  is  :  who  is 
the  iyo)  ?  does  Paul  speak  of  himself  alone,  or  does  he  speak  — 
Kara  fx^Tacr-^rj^aricriiov  —  of  a  whole  class  of  men  ?  That  the 
latter  is  the  case  is  clear  from  all  that  is  predicated  of  the  eyw, 
which  is  not  merely  individual,  as  well  as  from  the  analogy  of 
similar  ixeTaaxqiJ-o-rLa-fJioL,  cf.  Gal.  ii.  19,  20  ;  1  Cor.  iv.  3,  4  coll. 
6.  a)  But  it  is  especially  in  dispute,  whether  with  vs.  14  a 
change  of  the  situation  is  introduced,  as  has  been  declared. 
The  reading,  indeed,  varies  between  yap  (nBCFGK,  Yerss., 
and  Fathers),  and  Se  ( ADEL,  Verss.,  and  Fathers),  but  yap  has 
the  greater  probability  in  its  favor,  not  merely  on  account  of 
the  importance  of  Cod.  B  and  N,  but  also  because  Se  seems  to 
be  more  suitable,  and  would,  therefore,  be  substituted  for  the 
yap  rather  than  vice  versa.  But  if  yap  is  to  be  read,  the  view 
of  a  passing  over  from  the  unconverted  to  the  converted  state 
is  inadmissible,  not  only  on  account  of  the  yap,  but  also  because 
vs.  14  is  not  a  narrative  or  descriptive  thought,  but  a  reflection 
on  what  precedes.  The  change  from  the  aorist  to  the  present 
is  also  explicable  enough  from  the  change  from  description  to 
reflection,  and  by  virtue  of  the  ix.eraaxqp-o.Tiap.o^  the  present  is 
retained  in  what  follows  also.  If,  furthermore,  it  is  said,  that 
the  words  vs.  17,  19,  and  22  are  not  suitable  to  the  unregen- 
erate  condition,  this  is  not  an  exegetical,  but  a  dogmatic  reason, 
and  rests  not  so  much  on  an  actual  deliverance  of  the  moral 
consciousness,  as  on  a  dogmatic  interpretation  thereof.  y8) 
With  more  reason  is  vs.  25  referred  to  as  an  instance  against 
the  ante-Augustinian  explanation  of  the  passage  ;  but  it  is  a 
question  partly  of  the  correct  reading,  partly  of  the  con- 
nection. The  reading  vacillates  between  cuxaptorrai  t(3  ^cw 
(Text.  Kec,  fi^AKL,  most  of  the  other  Uncials,  Verss.,  and 
Greek  Fathers),  x^-P^^  ''"*?  ^^^  (Cod.  B  almost  alone,  some 
Verss.  and  Fathers)  and  rj  x^P'-'*  ^^^  ^^^^  (I^I'^F,  Verss.,  Itala, 
Vulg.,  and   Latin   Fathers).     The  last  reading  is  suspicious, 


INTENTION   OF   OTHER  DOCTRINAL   SECTIONS.         245 

from  the  fact  that  it  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  striving  to 
prevent  the  question  in  vs.  24  from  remaining  unanswered. 
But  whether  €v)(apLcrroi  or  xapts  tw  ^cw  is  read  does  not  at  all 
affect  the  main  question.  As  regards  the  connection,  vs.  25  is 
evidently  a  transition  from  vs.  24  to  viii.  1.  Verse  25  would, 
therefore,  be  a  support  of  the  Augustinian  explanation  only  if 
this  verse  still  belonged  entirely  to  the  foregoing,  and  the  pres- 
ent division  into  chapters  were  determinative.  Finally,  y) 
Gal.  V.  17  is  cited  as  a  support  for  the  Augustinian  explana- 
tion, but  there  the  opposition  between  irvevixa  and  (rdp$,  while 
here  that  between  vovs  and  (rdp$,  is  spoken  of.  But  the  Pau- 
line psychology  now  teaches  that  the  Apostle  never  uses 
TTvcv/xa  and  vovs  synonymously.  The  passage  is,  therefore,  not 
a  perfect  parallel,  and  hence  can  prove  nothing  for  the  explan- 
ation of  our  passage.  Through  the  explanation  of  the  details, 
therefore,  the  groundlessness  of  the  argument  for  the  Augus- 
tinian explanation  of  our  passage  is  proved.  2)  But  the  Connection 
connection  generally  and  upon  the  whole  is  decisive  for  the  for  the  op- 
opposite  view.  The  whole  of  the  first  part  of  our  Epistle  is  ^^^^  ®  ^^^^' 
occupied  with  proving  that  man  is  justified  not  through  the 
law,  but  of  grace,  through  faith.  In  chap,  i.-iii.  this  is  shown 
from  the  universal  sinfulness  as  well  of  the  Gentiles  as  also  of 
the  Jews.  In  chap.  iv.  it  is  shown  that  this  is  no  new  doctrine, 
but  a  doctrine  contained  already  in  the  Old  Testament.  In 
chap.  V.  the  w^hole  blessed  result  of  justification,  partly  in  the 
consciousness  of  the  justified  (vs.  1-11),  jmrtly  in  the  religious 
history  of  humanity  (vs.  12-21),  is  set  forth.  In  chap.  vi.  an 
important  objection  is  answered,  which  might  be  adduced  from 
V.  20,  21,  i.e.  from  the  assertion  that  sin  must  abound  in  order 
that  grace  might  much  more  abound.  But  since  now  the  question  Wliy  the 
still  always  remains,  why  then  the  law  contributes  nothing  to  not  justify, 
justification,  this  question  is  treated  in  chap.  vii. :  first  of  all  it 
is  shown,  in  a  preliminary  way,  by  an  analogy,  how  man,  from 
the  fact  that  he  has  entered  another  relation,  has  become  free 
from  the  first ;  but  then  ex  professo,  in  that  it  is  shown  psy- 
chologically how  only  through  the  law  the  consciousness  of  sin 
21* 


246  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

and  of  antagonism  is  awakened.  This  is  so  wrought  out,  that 
first  of  all  (vs.  7-13) — by  way  of  protestation  against  the 
suggestion  that  the  law  itself  is  something  evil  —  the  fact  is 
established,  that  with  the  entering  of  the  law  into  the  conscious- 
ness sin  has  been  stirred  up  ;  that  then  (vs.  1 4-23)  it  is  made 
clear  psychologically  whence  it  happens  that  the  law,  though 
good  in  itself,  is  yet  the  innocent  cause  of  the  consciousness  of 
sin  and  antagonism ;  viz.  from  its  relation  to  the  carnal  nature 
of  man,  which  it  can  merely  make  manifest,  but  cannot  over- 
come. So  there  remains  to  man  under  the  law  nothing  but 
the  painful  longing  for  redemption.  Quite  different  is  the  con- 
dition in  grace^  whose  blessedness,  new  obligation,  and  consola- 
tion are  set  forth  in  chap.  viii.  It  is  —  as  the  foregoing  expo- 
sition shows  —  an  improper  statement  of  the  question  at  the 
outset :  whether  in  the  passage  under  discussion  the  condition 
True  of  the  regenerate  or  that  of  the  unregenerate  is  described  ?     It 

is  rather  the  condition  under  the  law  and  the  condition  in  grace 
that  are  contrasted  in  chap.  vii.  and  viii.  But  should  the  ques- 
tion still  be  put  thus,  the  answer  would  depend  on  the  question, 
whether  Paul  classes  the  condition  under  the  law,  which  is 
undeniably  described  in  the  section  mentioned,  with  the  regen- 
erate condition  ?  But  this  question,  unless  we  are  willing  to 
subvert  the  whole  Pauline  doctrine,  must  be  decidedly  denied ; 
cf.  Rom.  vii.  24  coll.  viii.  1-4;  x.  4  ;  Gal.  ii.  19-21 ;  iii.  23-26. 
Thus  is  the  vexed  passage,  partly  in  an  inductive  and  partly 
in  a  deductive  way,  cleared  up. 

y)   The  Intention  of  Prophetical  Sections. 

67.   Prophecy  and  Its  Interpretation. 

In  no  department  of  exegesis  has  so  much  caprice  and  con- 
fusion prevailed,  from  ancient  times  until  now,  as  in  the 
Grounds  of  explanation  of  the  prophetical  matter  of  the  Bible.  This  con- 
and caprice,  fusion  and  caprice  has  its  ground,  1)  in  the  fact,  that  far 
less  has  been  thought  about  investigating  the  meaning  of  the 
author  than  about  seeking  in  the  prophetical  passage  what  it 
has  been  thought  desirable  to  find  therein,  and         2)  in  the 


INTENTION   OF   PROPHETICAL   SECTIONS.  247 

false  idea  of  prophecy.  As  regards  the  first  pomt,  we  have 
ah'eady  earlier  called  attention  thereto  as  a  fundamental  error 
of  the  interpreters,  and  as  the  fruitful  source  of  unnumbered 
errors ;  it  must,  therefore,  just  here  be  repeated  with  emphasis, 
that  all  Scripture  interpretation,  without  exception,  has  to  do  in 
the  first  instance  with  investigation  of  the  sense  as  a  historical 
matter  of  fact.  With  regard  to  the  second  point,  it  is  to  be 
lamented  that  even  still  in  the  most  recent  time  excellent  men 
have  suffered  themselves  to  be  led,  in  striving  after  the  deep 
sense,  to  underlay  the  prophetical  words  of  the  biblical  authors 
with  a  sense  of  which  these  authors  had  hardly,  indeed,  thought, 
—  in  opposition,  to  be  sure,  to  a  flattening  and  emptying  view,  to 
which  everything  was  "  mysticism,"  that  transcended  its  horizon. 
"We  have  to  do,  therefore,  with  the  true  idea  of  prophecy,  and  this  True  idea  of 
is  to  be  gained  chiefly  from  the  Old  Testament  and  from  the  pro-  how  attain- 
ducts  of  the  still  freshly  flowing  prophetic  spirit ;  especially  from 
the  biblical  expressions  that  designate  a  prophet:  inxn  seer(lSam. 
ix.  9)  or  PTtH  the  same  (Isa.  i.  1  ;  Amos  i.  1),  but  chiefly  t^-^^:  Hebrew  ex- 
(verbal  radical  unused  xnD ,  but  Arabic,  to  announce,  2dconjuga-  P^^"^*^"^* 
tion,  to  prophesy ;  coll.  Heb.  S23  to  gush,  to  spout  forth  :  Prov. 
xviii.  4,  with  which  also  is  to  be  compared  ?,i:3  stillare,  Hiph. 
to  prophesy,  and  V|"'I373  prophet,  Mic.  ii.  11)  either  passive,  one 
inspired  or  instructed  by  God ;  or  intransitive,  speaker,  orator ; 
cf.  Ex.  vii.  1  (Moses  to  Aaron  as  God  to  the  prophet,  Aaron 
Moses's  nabi  =  spokesman, coll.  iv.  16),  Amos  iii. 7, 8  (prophesy- 
ing the  necessary  result  of  the  speaking  of  God).  Further- 
more, the  expressions  are  to  be  considered  with  which  the 
Hebrew  designates  the  influence  of  God  on  the  prophets  :  "  Put  r>esi^a- 
my  words  in  his  mouth  "  (Num.  xxiii.  12,  16  ;  Deut.  xviii.  18)  ;  diWne  in-  ^ 
"  JPour  out  his  Spirit"  (Joel  iii.  1  coll.  Isa.  xliv.  3)  ;  "  Jehovah's  p^opuli'' 
Spirit  came  over  [cr]  him"  (Judg.  xiv.  6,  19  ;  xv.  14;  1  Sam. 
X.  6);  "Jehovah's  Spirit  came  upon  [b:?]  him"  (1  Sam.  xix. 
20-23),  etc.  This  influence  is  represented  as  a  higher  power, 
which,  however,  does  not  deprive  the  prophet  of  his  consciousness 
and  his  freedom  (Num.  xxiii.  12  ;  Isa.  viii.  11 ;  'Jer.  xx.  7,  9). 
The  prophet  designates  himself  (Num.  xxiv.  3,  4),  as  the  man 


248         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 

of  opened  eyes,  who  hears  the  words  of  God,  who  beholds  the 

face  of  the  Almighty  —  his  eyes  uncovered.     One  is  called  to 

the  i^rophetic  office  by  God  (Isa.  vi. ;  Jer.  i. ;  Amos  vii.  15), 

and  his  office  is  to  exhort  and  to  warn  the  people  (Mic.  iii.  8  : 

Official        Jer.   xxiii.    22  ;    Ezek.  xxxiii.  3-0).  Official   epithets  of  the 

prophets^    prophets  are  :  *•  man  of  God  "  (1  Sam.  ii.  27  ;  1  Kings  xii.  22 ; 

xiii.  1)  ;  "watchman  "  (r^Qbs  Jer.  vi.  17  ;  Ezek.  iii.  17  ;  xxxiii. 

2,  coll.  Ilab.  ii.  1).     The  prophet  is,  therefore,  the  divinely 

called  and  inspired  proclaimer  of  God's  counsel  and  will  —  and, 

indeed,  in  general  (Joel  i. ;  Amos  iii. ;  Isa.  i.,  etc.),  particularly 

with  reference  to  the  future  of  the  theocracy  (Joel  iii.  1-5  ; 

Amos  ix.  11-15;  Mic.  iv.  1-4;  Jer.  xxxi.  31-34;  Ezek.  xi. 

17  f. ;  xxxvi.  22-27 ;  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.,  especially  xliii.  18, 19  ;  Jer. 

Prophets      XX vi.  2-6,  etc.).    That  the  prophets,  while  they  were  indeed  rapt 

not  uncon-  i--Tiio'«r./^T  •  t- 

Bcious  and    and  nispired  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  were  not  unconscious  and  in- 
'  voluntary  organs  of  the  Spirit,  is  evident,     1)  from  the  circum- 
stance, that  they  could  afterwards  write  out  their  revelations  ;  cf. 
especially  Jer.  xxxvi. ;  and       2)  that  the  Apostle  yet  definitely 
distinguishes    the    7rpocfi7]TevcLv  from    the   yXwcrcrat?  XaXexv ;   cf. 
1  Cor.    xiv.  4,  5,  22-24.      So   far   as    the   discourse   of   the 
25rophet  relates  to  the  future,  prophecy^  is  sometimes  uncon- 
ditioned (Num.  xxiii.  19  ;  Isa.  liv.  10  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  36,  37  ;  xxxiii. 
19-26),  —  and,  indeed,  unconditioned  prophecy  of  penal  judg- 
ments (Jer.  V.  and  vi. ;  xi.  1-17  ;  xv.  1-9  ;  Amos  i.  4-8  ;  v. 
etal.),  as  well  as  of  promises  (Joel  iii.  and  iv ;  Amos  ix.  11— 
15 ;  IIos.  ii.  14-23  ;  Isa.  viii.  23  to  ix.  6,  11,  35,  40  ff. ;  Jer. 
xxxi.,  etc.)  ;  and  sometimes  conditioned  through  the  relation  of 
the  people  (Joel  ii.  12-14;  Jer.  vii.  5-7  ;  xv.  19  ;  xviii.  5-10; 
Prophecy     xxvi.  3,  13 ;  xxxvi.  3;  Ezek.  xviii.  11-27)^     But  prophecy 
oirhiVtorf-^  always  rests  on  the  historical  ground,  where  the  prophet  lives, 
cai  ground.  ^^^  j^,^^  ^j^.^  ^.^^  .^^  presupposition.    Cf.  Joel  iii.  coll.  ii.  21-27  ; 
Amos  i.  and  ii. ;  IIos.  iv.  ff.  ;  Isa.  vii. ;  viii.  23  to  ix.  6,  11, 
especially  vs.  11  if. ;   xl.-lxvi.,  especially   xlv.    et  al.      Even 

1  The  Germans  have  a  word  to  represent  the  utterances  of  prophets  in 
general  —  Prophetie,  and  a  distinct  word  to  represent  such  utterances  as 
relate  to  the  future  —  Wcismgung.  We  cannot  make  the  distinction  with- 
out circumlocution.  —  lit. 


INTENTION   OP  PROPHETICAL  SECTIONS.  249 

Daniel,  cf.   especially,  chap.  xi.  (on  which  see  Jerome)  and  of, 

the  connection  with  the  foregoing.     In  the  New  Testament : 

Matt.  xxiv.  and  Par. ;    2  Thess.  ii.  1-9,  especially  vs.  6  and 

7;  Rev.,  especially  vii.  14;  xi.  1,  2;  xvii.  9-11.     Lastly  — 

and  this  is  one  of  the  most  important  points  —  the  drift  of  i^rift  of 

1  .  ,  ,  .    .  .     .  prophecy, 

prophecy  is  not  so  much  to  mmister  to  curiosity  as  to  arouse 

the  people  to  repentance,  to  faith,  and  to  steadfastness.  Just  as 
the  biblical  monotheism  is  not  a  speculative  monotheism  (as 
that  of  the  Brahmins  and  the  Eleatics),  but  a  practical  mono- 
theism (cf.  Ex.  -xx.  3  f. ;  Deut.  vi.  4  f. ;  Isa.  xli.  1-4 ;  xlii. 
8;  xliv.  QE.',  xlvi.  1-11;  Jer.  ii.  13;  xvii.  5-8),  so  is  the 
prophecy  of  the  one  God,  according  to  its  whole  intention 
essentially  practical  (cf.  especially  Joel  i.  and  ii. ;  Amos  iii. ; 
lios.  V.  1-G;.  xi. ;  xiv.  2-10;  Mic.  vi.  1-8;  vii.  1-6;  Isa.  i. 
2-31  ;  V.  ;  xl.-lxvi. ;  Jer.  ii.  1-3,  5  ;  iii.  6-vi.  30;  vii.-ix.,  etc. 
This  is  only  a  synopsis  of  the  features,  for  the  further  Literature. 
elaboration  of  which  see  Knobel,  Der  Prophetismus  der  He- 
briier,  1837.  Hitzig,  Eiuleitung  zum  Propheten  Jesaja,  1833. 
B.  Koster,  Die  Propheten  des  Alten  und  Neuen  Testamentes, 
1838.  K  Ewald,  Die  Propheten  des  Alten  Bundes,  1840,  and 
later.  Bunsen,  God  in  History.  F.  Bleek,  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament,  vol.  ii.  pp.  1—31.  For  views  different  from 
the  one  here  advanced,  see  Hengstenherg,  Christology  of  the  Old 
Testament,  2  ed.  Hofmann,  Weissagung  und  Erfiillung.  Au- 
herlen.  The  Proj^het  Daniel  and  the  Book  of  Revelation,  2  ed. 
Cf.  on  the  other  hand,  Bertheau,  in  the  Jahrbiicher  fiir  deutsche 
Theologie,  1859,  pp.  314  ff.,  and  pp.  593  ff.,  against  whom 
again  Oehlcr,  Art.  Weissagung  in  Ilerzog's  R.  E. ;  H.  Schulz, 
Alttestamentliche  Theologie,  I.  147  ff.  See  also  Oehler's  pro- 
gramme "  Ueber  das  Yerhaltniss  der  Alttestamentlichen  Proph- 
etie  zur  heidnischen  Mantik,"  1861.^ 

68.    Difficulties  In  Interpreting  Prophecy. 

But  even  if  the  interpreter  has  the  right  view  of  prophecy,  he 
may   yet   stumble   upon   difficulties.     The   principal   are   the 

1  See  also  the  elaborate  Article,  "  Prophet,"  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  the 
Bible,  where  a  full  exhibit  of  the  literature  of  the  subject,  Latin,  German, 
and  r.nglish,  may  be  found. —  Tr. 


250 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 


Uncertainty 
of  time. 


Figurative 
language. 


Doubtful- 
ness as  to 
tense. 


Seeming  in- 
congruity 
betweon 
proplrecy 
and  lullil- 
ment. 


Partial  dis- 
agreement 
of  the  same. 


Lackof  per- 
Bpective. 


following :  a)  It  may  occur  that  the  time  in  which  the 
prophet  wrote,  and  hence  the  historical  foundation,  is  obscure 
and  disputed,  e.g.  in  the  Old  Testament  in  Obadiah,  in  the  New- 
Testament  in  2  Thess.  ii.  1-12.  b)  The  poetical  or  rhetori- 
cal form  of  the  prophecy  may  leave  it  uncertain,  what  belongs 
to  the  contents  and  what  to  the  figurative  form,  —  a  difficulty 
which  certainly  belongs  to  the  explanation  of  the  New  Testament 
prophecy  less  than  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  c)  Sometimes 
it  may  be  doubtful  whether  the  prophet  speaks  of  a  future  or  of 
a  present  matter,  as,  e.g.  in  the  Old  Testament  in  Nah.  iii.  1  ff., 
in  the  New  Testament  what  is  said  in  2  Thess.  ii.  5  f.,  of  the 
dvTifcet/xei/o?  and  Kari-xinv.  c?)  It  may  occur  that  between 
the  j^rophecy  and  the  fulfilment  a  remarkable  incongruity  can 
be  established,  and  that,  too,  not  only  in  the  details  but  in  the 
prophecy  as  a  whole,  as  between  the  words  of  triumph  of  the 
Babylonish  Isaiah^  and  the  miserable  result  of  the  Jewish 
Restoration  ;  cf.  Hag.  ii.  3  ;  Neh.  i.  and  ii.  ;  Joseph.  Arch.  1. 
XL  Cf.  furthermore,  the  Messianic  prophecies  Isa.  viii.  23- 
ix.  6;  xi.  1-10,  etal.,  with  the  issue;  in  the  New  Testament 
the  prophecy  of  the  Parousia  as  near  at  hand  (Matt.  xvi.  27, 
28;  xxvi.  64,  and  Par. ;  1  Thess.  iv.  15;  1  Cor.  xv.  51)  with 
the  history.  e)  Frequently  a  certain  agreement  between 
prophecy  and  its  fulfilment  cannot  be  denied  ;  but  facts  appear 
connected  in  the  prophecy,  that  afterwards  lie  far  apart  histor- 
ically, as  Matt.  xxiv. ;  Mark  xiii.,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  crvvTiKeia  rov  alCjvo<;.  f)  Finally,  the  time  of  the  con- 
summation appears  at  one  time  close  at  hand,  e.g.  Matt.  x.  23  ; 
xvi.  28 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  15  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  oL;  Rev.  i.  3  ;  xxii.  7,  12, 
20,  at  another  time  it  recedes  into  the  distance ;  cf.  Matt.  xiii. 
31-33;  xxiv.  14;  2  Thess.  ii.  2-4,  lastly,  the- whole  line  of 
events'  that  are  to  take  place,  according  to  the  Apocalyptic, 
between  his  time  and  the  Parousia.     Each  of  these  passages  is 


1  Our  author  takes  for  <:ranted  here  what  most  but  not  all  authorities 
admit  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  second  part  of  Isaiah.  He  also  assumes, 
quite  unnecessarily,  that  the  return  of  the  Israelites  from  the  captivity 
exhausts  the  prophecy.  —  Tr. 


INTENTION    OF   PROPHETICAL   SECTIONS.  251 

^o  be  explained  first  of  all  from  its  connection ;    yet  certain 
general  points  of  view  are  necessary,  without  which  the  most 
essential  difficulties  cannot  be  solved.     Eeferring  to  the  fore-  Alleviation 
going  paragraphs  («,  5,  etc.),  we  call  special  attention  here  to  goi*n^dif.^ 
the  following  :         a)   The  historical  situation  and  basis  cannot,  ^°"^'*^'*- 
it  is  true,  be  always  established  with  certainty,  but  sometimes 
the  difficulty  is  not  so  much  contained  in  the  text  itself  as 
brought  forward  through  a  theological  interest.     It  cannot  be 
too  strongly  emphasized,  that  this  interest  must  recede  entirely 
behind    the   exegetical-historical   matter-of-fact.  h)    With 

reference  to  the  relation  of  prophecy  to  fulfilment,  it  is  clear, 
from  the  preceding  paragraph,  that  an  enlightened  glance  into 
the  future  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was,  indeed,  vouchsafed  to 
the  prophets,  but  that  prophecy  neither  related  to  all  the  de- 
tails nor  could  or  would  foresee  the  future,  even  as  a  whole, 
with  the  exactness  and  infallibility  of  chronicles,  but  that  it  is 
essentially  conditioned  through  the  politico-religious  situation  Prophecy 
in  which  the  prophet  lived,  and  in  its  expressions  was  figura-  tiirough°he 
tively  and  rhetorically  colored  ;  that  in  general  the  Divine  Spirit,  Jei'/iioug 
by  which  the  prophet  was  seized,  wrought  not  with  mechanical  ^^''^^^^<'^* 
or  magical  necessity,  nor  dispensed  with  the  human  in  him,  but 
rather  consecrated  and  elevated  it.     From  this  authorship  by 
men  with  minds  thus  exalted  is  the  incongruity  between  the 
sanguine  prophecy  and  the  poor  fulfilment ;  from  the  national 
and  temporal  limitation  of  the  prophet  is  the  contradiction 
between    the    nationally    and    politically    colored    contents    of 
prophecy  and  the  universal  and  spiritual  issue,  to  be  explained. 
c)  That  the  end  appears  now  to  be  near  at  hand  and  now  far 
remote  is  explicable  from  the  fact  that  the  prophetic  illumina- 
tion   has   reference    essentially  only  to  the  general  and   real 
development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  not  to  local  and  tem- 
j^oral  matters.     Over  against  the  vulgar  opinion,  theologically  Tiie divinity 
.defended  even  in  this  century,  that  the  divinity  of  prophecy  is  Sot  shown^ 
shown  chiefly  in  the  coincidence  of  'particular  things,  must  be  incidences?* 
set  as  the  true  view,  that  the  more  prophecy  relates   to  the 
particular  and  empirical,  to  the  local  and  temporal,  the  more 


252 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 


The  ques- 
tion at  issue 


uncertain  it  is,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  more  it  is  directed 
to  the  general  and  the  ideal^  the  more  certain  and  divine  it  is.^ 

69.  Jesus's  Eschatological  Discourse. 

For  the  illustration  of  what  has  been  said  the  eschatological 
discourse  of  Jesus  Matt.  xxiv.  (coll.  Mark  xiii ;  Luke  xxi), 
may  serve.  The  discourse,  as  regards  its  eschatological  didac- 
tic part,  has  a  strong  Danielic  coloring,  especially  in  Matthew, 
where  Daniel  himself  is  expressly  mentioned  (vs.  24).  Essen- 
tially Danielic  are  the  following  features  ;  vs.  15  coll.  Dan.  ix. 
27  ;  vs.  21  coll.  Dan.  xii.  1  ;  vs.  30  coll.  Dan.  vii.  13.  How, 
in  general,  at  the  time  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  the  idea  of  the 
Messiah  assumed  a  Danielic  form,  such  expressions  as  Matt, 
xiii.  43  coll.  Dan.  xii.  3 ;  Matt.  xvi.  27  f. ;  xxvi.  64  coll.  Dan. 
vii.  13;  furthermore,  2  Thess.  ii.  4  coll.  Dan.  xi.  36,  and  the 
whole  Book  of  Revelation,  show.  The  relation  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  to  the  o-uvre'Aeta  rov  al^voq 
and  to  the  Parousia  in  the  specifically  eschatological  part,  is  a 
matter  of  dispute.  The  express  mention  of  the  siege  and 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  found,  indeed,  only  in  Luke  (vs.  20- 
24)  ;  but  with  the  first  two  Evangelists  also  the  connection 
of  the  two  events  is,  at  least,  presupposed  ;  (cf.  Matt.  vs.  3  ff. ; 
Mark  vs.  3  ff.  ;  Matt.  vs.  15, 16  ;  Mark  vs.  14).  Here  the  prin- 
cipal difficulty  is  this,  that  Jesus  1)  has  represented  his 
personal  and  heavenly  return  as  impending  in  the  near  future, 
and  2)  as  closely  connected  with  the  judgment  on  Jerusa- 
lem, —  both  of  which,  as  is  well-known,  are  contradicted 
through  the  history.  Either^  therefore,  Jesus  has  erred  and 
indulged  in  reveries,  or  we  must  understand  this  prophecy 
otherwise.  Yet  how  are  we  to  understand  it  ?  We  may  a) 
seek  yet  to  separate  the  proj^hecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem from  that  of  the  Parousia,  but  this  would  be  an  act  of  exe- 
getical  violence,  and,  as  such,  has  long  since  been  condemned  ;  or 
Idealizing,  we  may  jS)  idealize  the  so  plastic  prophecy  of  the  Parousia 
and  say:   Jesus  has  expressed  his  spiritual  ideas  in  sensuous 

I     1  This  statement  will  probably  not  strike  most  readers  as  axiomatic.  — 
}  Te. 


Principal 
difficulty. 


Two  alter- 
natives. 


Separation 
of  the  two 
elements. 


INTENTION   OF  PROPHETICAL  SECTIONS.  253 

imat^es,  but  did  not  inteud  that   these  should  be  understood 
literally.     But  what  ideal  sense  are  we  to  attach  to  these  sen- 
suous images?"  That  his  H7?«7c?om,  his  truth  in  the  immediate 
future  shall  be  manifested  in  glory,  of  which  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  the  ruin  of  the  Jewish  theocracy,  is  the  preliminary 
condition.     But  for  this  there  is  no  exegetical  justification  at 
hand   either  in   this  eschatological  discourse  itself,  or  in  any 
other  discourse  or  expression  of  Jesus  whatsoever.     Or         y)  Misunder- 
it  may  be  assumed  that  the  disciples  and  especially  the  Evan-  ?h^parf  o°f° 
gelists  had  misunderstood  the  Lord.  For  this  view  there  seems  nsls/*"^^ 
to   be    irrefragable    grounds,  but    especially  the    conflict  with 
such  passages  as  Matt.  xiii.  31-33  ;  Mark  iv.  26-29,  according 
to  which  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  to  appear  as  a  Deus  ex 
machina,  but  is  to  be  developed  from  small  and  hidden  begin- 
nings ;  furthermore,  in  Matt.  xx.  25-28,  et  al.,  according  to 
which  the  essence  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  not  external 
power  and  glory,  but  ministering  love.     Nevertheless  the  sup-  ^hat  the 
position  of  such  a  misunderstanding,  which  would  have  been  g^tion'm-^' 
participated  in  by  all  the  disciples  and  Apostles,  even  by  Paul  ^°^^^^- 
(1  Cor.  XV.  51  ;  1  Thess.  xv.  15-17),  is  extremely  hazardous 
and  arbitrary.     What  assurance  should  we  have  after  such  a 
universal  and  profound  misunderstanding  that  they  had  under- 
stood aright  any  of  the  Master's  words  whatever  ?     And  so  far 
as  the  inconsistency  with  the  other  expressions  of  Jesus  cited  is 
concerned,  it  is  by  no  means  unthinkable  that  Jesus  did  really 
regard  its  silent  and  gradual  development  as  the  immediate 
destination  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  as  its  conclusion,  a 
great  manifestation  and   catastrophe.         8)   Accordingly,  the  The  correct 
only  view  left  to  sober  and  fair  exegesis  seems  to  be,  that  Jesus  ^^®^" 
really  —  in  substance  at  least  —  said  what  we  read,  namely,  in 
Matt.  xxiv.  and  Mark  xiii,  and  said  it  as  we  there  read  it.    The 
same  prediction  of   his  Parousia  to  be  expected  in  the  near 
future  is  found  also,  indeed,  in  Matt.  x.  23,  especially  in  Matt, 
xvi.  27  f. ;  xix.  28  ;  xxvi.  64.     But  how  does  it  help  the  matter 
to  remove  exegetically  this  expectation  in  the  great  eschatolo- 
gical discourse,  if  the   other  expressions,  that   say  the   same 
22 


254  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP   THE   INTERPRETER. 

thing   in    substance,  remain  standing?     And  Low  should  we 

account  for  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  Paul,  otherwise  so  acute 

a  thinker,  has  the  sanie  downright  sensuous  conception  of  the 

Parousia  and  the    final   judgment  (1  Thess.  iv.  15  f.  ;   iCor. 

XV.  51,  52)  ?     But  how,  then,  are  we  to  escape  as  a  result  the 

supposition  that  Jesus  erred,  that  he  spoke  as  an  enthusiast?    c) 

A  method    There  seems  to  be  still  one  method  of  escape  left.  viz.  to  sup- 
of  escape.  ^  ^ 

pose  that  the  discourse  with  reference  to   the    future  (Matt. 

xxiv  ;  Mark  xiii.)  is  spurious,  or  has  at  least  been  strongly- 
interpolated  in  a  Jewish  interest.  Tliis  view  is  not  entirely 
destitute  of  support ;  first  of  all,  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  dis- 
course which  yet  takes  as  its  starting-point  the  definite  expec- 
tation of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (Matt.  vs.  2  ;  ]Mark  vs.  2), 
does  not  speak  of  this,  but  only  of  the  (3Se\.vyixa  ipr}iJuw(T€(D<i  of 
the  temple  (Matt.  vs.  15)  ;  then  vs.  20,  "  Pray,  that  your  fiiglit 
may  not  take  place  on  the  Sabbath,"  does  not  seem  at  all  in 
harmony  with  Jesus's  way  of  thinking  about  the  Sabbath  and 
his  relation  thereto  (cf.  Mark  ii.  27,  28  ;  iii.  1-5,  al.).  But 
then  this  would  necessitate  an  impeachment  also  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  other  passages  with  reference  to  the  Parou- 
"  sia,  and  thus  would  follow  the  evil  state  of  things  pointed  out 
Wiffpn-  under  y.  ^)  Finally,  an  explanation  seems  to  have  much 
pianAuni.  ill  its  favor,  which  after  suggestions  by  Schleiermacher  and 
Weisse,  Vrijffenbach  (Der  Zukunftsgedanke  Jesu,  1873)  has 
very  recently  developed:  only  the  prediction  of  his  return 
as  near  at  hand  is  properly  authentic  in  this  discourse  with 
reference  to  tlie  future,  since  this  thought  was  neither  imme- 
diately nor  mediately  indicated  in  Judaism.  The  rest  is  made 
up  by  a  mingling  partly  of  collected  expressions  of  Jesus 
spoken  on  other  occasions,  partly  of  thoughts  that  do  not  belong 
to  the  Master  himself.  Thus  vanishes  the  ai)pearance  of  a 
connection  of  tlie  Parousia  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
That  this  is  not  to  be  referred  to  the  Master  himself,  is  con- 
firmed by  the  other  expressions  as  to  the  Parousia,  which  say 
nothing  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  cf.  especially,  Malt, 
xvi.    27  f.     On    the   other   hand,   Jesus  expressed    Parousial 


INTENTION   OF  PROPHETICAL  SECTIONS.  255 

thoughts  in  connection  with  his  resurrection,  and  that  too  in 
such  a  way  that  the  thought  about  his  death  formed  for  him 
the  transition  to  the  Parousial  thought  (=  thought  as  to  his 
resurrection)  ;  cf.  especially  Luke  xvii.  24,  25,  and  Mark  viii. 
27  to  ix.  1  Par.     But  how,  then,  is  it  to  be  explained,  that  Jesus 
expresses  the  thought  of  his  return  as  near  at  hand  so  con- 
stantly in  the  words  of  Daniel,  which,  indeed,  have  nothing  at 
all  to  do  with  the  thought  of  the  resurrection.     The  most  cer-  The  true  ex- 
tain  thing  of  all  that  is  certain  in  Jesus's  discourses  as  to  the  ^  ^"^  ^^^' 
future  seems  rather  to  be,  that  he  beheld  the  thought  of  his 
activity  extending  far  beyond  his  death  in  the  light  of  the  pas- 
sage in  Daniel  (vii.  13).     With  this  was  undoubtedly  connected 
in  his  mind  the  prophetic  foreboding  of  a  great  catastrophe,  espe- 
cially of  the  divine  judgment  on  Jerusalem.    As  to  his  Israelitish 
conception  Jerusalem  represented  the  theocratic  centre  of  the 
v/orld,  so  also  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem  represented  the  centre  of 
the  catastrophe  of  the  world.     Not  the  temporal,  but  the  ideal    • 
connection  of  the  judgment  on  Jerusalem  with  his  manifestation 
in  glory  is  here  the  principal  thing.     When  we  say  that  Jesus  Jesus,  as  an 
has  expressed  his   thoughts   as  to  the  future  in  the  realistic  thought  and 
manner  of  Daniel,  we  simply  say  that  he,  as  an  Oriental,  an  orie'ntai.^" 
Israelite,  did  think  of  it  thus  ;  but  we  Occidentals,  we  children 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  cannot  thus  think  of  it.     This  is  the 
stand-point  that  an  honest,  truth-loving  exegesis   must  take. 
Was  the  intention  of  this  discourse  essentially  theoretical,  to  intention 
enlighten  his  disciples  with  reference  to  the  last  things,  or  prac-  discourse, 
tical,  to  exhort  them  to  watchfulness  and  steadfastness  ?    In  the 
former   case   the    exhortation    from  vs.  43  (Matt.),  or  vs.  28 
(Mark)  onwards  would  contain  merely  inferences  ;  in  the  latter 
case  the  entire  foregoing  exposition  of  the  wStves  and  of  the 
Parousia  would  be  mere  assignment  of  motive  to  tlie  exhorta- 
tion to  watchfulness.    This  must  be  determined  partly  from  the 
occasion  and  partly  from  the  course  of  thought  of  the  discourse 
itself.  The  discourse  is  occasioned  according  to  all  the  Synoptics,  Occasion, 
most  clearly  of  all  according  to  Mark,  through  the  circumstance 
that  his  disciples  (according  to  Mark  one  of  the  disciples)  called 


256  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE  INTERPRETER. 

their  Master's  attention  to  tlie  great  and  gorgeous  structure  of  the 
(Herotlian)  temple,  whereupon  he  answered,  that  no  stone  should 
remain  upon  another,  —  and  through  the  question,  When  shall 
this  happen,  and  what  will  be  the  signs  of  the  Parousia  and  of  the 
time  of  consummation  ?  Here  it  is  remarkable  already,  that 
the  interrogators  (according  to  Matthew,  not  according  to 
Mark),  as  it  appears,  go  far  beyond  the  observation  of  the 
Master  ;  for  he  had  spoken  merely  of  the  destruction  of  the 
temjole,  but  they  talk  of  the  Parousia  and  crwreXcta  rov  atcovos. 
This  question  is  grounded  on  the  idea  of  the  T^'^^'>2  "'h'^n  (Dan. 
ix.  27 ;  xii.  1  f.),  of  which  the  destruction  of  the  temple  will 
be  a  part.  Jesus  accepts  this  conception,  since  he  not  only 
foresees  the  overthrow  of  the  city  and  of  the  temple,  but  him- 
self also  brings  the  destruction  of  the  holy  city  into  connection 
with  the  Messianic  wStves  and  the  o-vvreXeia  rov  aiajvos.  (On 
The  inten-  this,  see  above).  This  is  the  connection,  which  points  to  the 
strucHon'  f^^t,  that  the  intention  of  the  passage  is  instruction  with  refer- 
the^ast""^  ence  to  the  last  things.  But  everything  depends  on  the  con- 
things,  tents  and  character  of  this  instruction,  and  this  is  to  be.  learned 
Course  of  from  the  course  of  thought.  Now  it  is  already  worthy  of 
*  ^"S  t-  observation,  that  Jesus  begins  his  instruction  with  th5  practical 
exhortation  :  ySA-eVcre  jxr)  tl^  v/xas  TrXavrjcrr)  (Matt.  vs.  4  ;  Mark 
Didactic  VS.  5).  Now  this  exliortation  is  motived,  certainly,  through  the 
following  instruction  with  reference  to  the  coming  of  the  false 
Messiahs  (Matt.  vs.  5  ;  Mark  vs.  6)  ;  with  this  is  connected  the 
prophecy  of  wars  and  political  revolutions  (Matt.  vs.  6,  7),  and 
these  phenomena  are  (vs.  8)  designated  as  apxr]  cuStVoiv,  with 
which  the  first  group  of  thoughts  concludes.  The  second  now 
speaks  of  the  bodily  and  spiritual  calamities  by  which  thej/ 
themselves  will  be  affected,  and  concludes  with  the  aphorism : 
o  Se  v7rofX€Lvas  cts  t€.\o<s,  ovto<s  (TiaOricreraL  (Matt.  vs.  13  —  Mark 
has  not  the  same  course  of  thought)  and  with  the  prospect  of 
the  spread  of  the  gospel  over  the  Gentile  world  (vs.  14).  This 
group  ends  v.itli  the  words  kol  t6t€  ■^^a  to  tcAos.  The  principal 
group  (Matt.  vs.  15-28)  is  divided  into  the  recommendation  of 
rapid  fliglit  from  the  destruction  (to  vs.  20  inclusive),  and  the 


part. 


INTENTION   OF  PROPHETICAL  SECTIONS.  257 

grounding  of  this  exhortation  through  the  unheard-of  greatness 
of  the  calamity  (to  vs.  28).  The  following  group  (vs.  29-31) 
contains  the  Parousia  itself,  which  is  to  appear  in  connection  with 
great  commotions  of  the  heavens  —  the  decisive  factor,  which  is 
delineated  according  to  Dan.  vii.  13.  Thus  far  the  predom- 
inantly didactic  part  extends.  With  vs.  32  the  practical  part  P^J^^tical 
of  the  discourse  begins,  and  goes  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  nay, 
even  beyond  this  point,  for  the  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins  is 
closely  connected  with  that  of  the  servant  expecting  the  arrival 
of  his  lord.  This  practical  part  may  be  analyzed  as  follows : 
vs.  32-35  speaks  of  the  certainty  of  the  prophecy,  declared 
through  the  arjfjiela  mentioned,  and  guaranteed  through  the 
Lord's  words ;  vs.  36-42  of  the  uncertainty  of  the  point  of 
time,  and  the  necessity  grounded  in  this  of  watching,  and  in 
vs.  43  ff.  watching  is  invited  through  two  parables,  of  which 
the  one  enjoins  watchfulness  as  circumspection,  the  other  bases 
watchfulness  on  the  culpability  of  the  opposite.     What  follows  Teaching  of 

„     ,  1       ,.         1       .  •  J?  ^1       -T      the  course 

now  from  this  course  of  thought  for  the  mtention  oi  the  dis-  of  thought. 

course  ?     The  question  of  the  disciples  was  a  question  of  curi- 
osity and  inquisitiveness ;  the  answer  of  Jesus  corresponds  to  this 
in  as  far  as  he  gives  to  the  disciples,  certainly,  the  crrjixua  of  the 
Parousia,  but  this  instruction  of  his  concludes  with  a  practical 
doctrine,  as  he  has  already  begun  it,  indeed,  with  an  exhortation, 
and  has  closed  each  part  of  his  prophecy  with  a  practical  sen- 
tence.    Jesus  transforms  thus  the  question  of  curiosity  into  a 
practical  question,  just  as  in  Luke  xiii.  23  if.  and  x.  29  ff.    Not 
as  if  prophecy  were  a  mere  vehicle  of  exhortation,  for  with  this, 
here  as  elsewhere,  there  is  a  bitter  seriousness,  and  the  divine 
counsels,  together  with  their  proclamation,  are  a  matter  of  great 
concern.     Rather  the  relation  of  the  eschatological  prediction  Relation  of 
to  the  practical  object  is  to  be  so  understood,  that  the  former  tion  to  the 
in  God's  counsel  is  the  ground,  development,  and  consummation  object? 
of  the  kingdom  of  God;  but  the  frst  and  the  last  thing  for 
the  disciples  is  watchfulness  and  steadfast  endurance. 
70.    Prophetical   Passage  in  2  Thessalonians. 
By  the  help  of  the  point  of  view  set  forth  we  may  throw 
22* 


258  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP   THE    INTERPRETER. 

light  upon  still  another  prophetical  passage:  2  Thess.  ii.  1-12. 
The  critical  question  respecting  the  relation  of  2  Thess.  to 
1  Thess.  remains  here  untouched.  Presupposing  the  certainly 
difficult  grammatical  explanation  of  our  passage,  we  have  to  do 

Occasion,  only  with  its  logical  sense.  The  occasion  of  the  instruction  on 
the  last  things  that  follows  is  clearly  given  in  vs.  1  and  2  :  "  Now 
we  beseech  you,  brethren,  with  regard  to  the  Parousia  {virlp  as 
Trept,  also  1  Thess.  iii.  2  ;  2  Cor.  i.  8)  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  our  gathering  together  unto  him  (cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  31),  that 
ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind  or  troubled  (i/org,  the  clear  con- 
sciousness in  distinction  from  enthusiasm  and  agitation ;  cf. 
1  Cor.  xiv.  15),  neither  through  enthusiasm,  nor  through  agita- 
tion (see  vs.  15  coll.  1  Cor.  xii*  8),  nor  through  a  (forged) 
letter,  purporting  to  have  been  written  by  us,  as  if  the  day  of  the 
Lord  were  near  at  hand."  ^  The  Thessalonians,  therefore,  had 
been  by  such  means  thrown  into  such  an  apocalyptic  agitation, 
that  they  had  withdrawn,  as  it  appears,  from  their  ordinary 
avocations  and  labors,  and  yielded  to  idleness  in  expectation  of 
the  end  of  the  world ;  cf.  iii.  6  f.  The  work  of  the  A2)ostle 
must,  therefore,  it  would  seem,  consist  in  pacifying  the  minds 

Course  of     of  the  readers.  Let  us,  however,  consider  the  instruction  and  the 

Kegressive  ^^'^'"'^^  of  thought  itself.  This  is  first  of  all  (vs.  3-7)  regressive, 
and  points  out  all  that  must  precede  the  Parousia,  viz.  1) 

the  apostasy,  by  which  not  a  political  but  a  religio-moral  apos- 
tasy is  meant,  and  as  representative  and  head  of  this  apostasy 
the  avOpoiTTos  T^s  d/xaprtac  (i.e.  he  in  whom  sin  is,  so  to  speak, 
embodied),  the  vtbs  r^?  aTrcoXttas,  who  is  now  still  further 
described  as  6  avriKct/xti/os  (as  the  adversary  Kar  c^.),  and  6 
VTrepatpoixevo^  vTrkp  iravTa  Xeyofxevov  Oeov  ^  a-ijBaa-fxa,  who  carries 
his  self-exaltation  to  the  most  shameless  self-apotheosis  (analo- 
gous to  Dan.  xi.  36)  ;  2)  yet  the  removing  of  the  KaT^xytv 
(-OI/),  by  which  an  abstraction  as  well  as  a  concrete  person  must 
be  meant,  i.e.  partly  the  Roman  government  in  abstracto,  partly 
its  representative,  the  emperor  (probably  Claudius)  in  concreto, 

Progressive  precedes  the  open  apostasy.  In  vs.  8  the  discourse  is  progres- 
1  A  paraphrase  of  the  passaj^e  rather  thau  a  translation.  —  Tk. 


THE   REAL   EXPLANATION.  259 

sive,  and  treats         1)   of  the  unchecked  manifestation  of  the 
cii/o/Io?,  who  without  any  doubt  is  identical  with  the  dvriKei>€vo9, 
but  is- here  clearly  designated  as  representative  of  heathenism, 
and         ^)  of  the  extirpation  of  the  same  through  the  power 
of  the   Lord  at  his  Parousia,  together   with    a   retrospective 
description  of  the  seductive  power  of  the  adversary  (vs.  9,  10), 
the  gutlt  of  the  seduced  and  the  judgment  on  them  (vs.  11,12). 
It  is  evident  that  Paul  means  (vs.  3-7)  to  show  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  all  that  must  occur  before  the  day  of  the  Lord  appears, 
but  that  then  the  description  (vs.  8-12),  means  to  show  in  what 
the  day  of  the  Lord  consists,  viz.  in  the  judgment  on  the  dan- 
gerous adversary  and  those  whom  he  has  seduced.     The  object 
of  the  first  part  is  to  enlarge  the  view  of  the  Thessalonians, 
that  of  the  second,  to  forearm  them  against  seduction.     The  intention, 
design  of  the  whole  is  to  impress  upon  the  hearts  of  the  readers 
the  fact  that  the  right  attitude  with  regard  to    the  dag  of  the 
Lord  is  not  idle  curiosity,  hut  steadfastness  of  faith.     On  the 
Apocalypse  see  below,  §  96. 

^.    The  Real  Explanation. 

Cf.  Winer,  Biblisches  Eeahvorterbuch ;  the  exceUent  Article  in  Herzog,  Keal- 
Encyklopadie ;  Schenket,  Bibellexikon. 

71.   Scope  and  Importance  of  the  Real  Explanation. 
The  grammatical  and  the  logical  explanation  have  to  do  with 
nothing  but  the  language  and  the  thoughts  of  the  author,  pay- 
ing no  regard  to  the  external  relations  under  which  he  lived 
and  wrote.     These  external  relations,  which  exercised  an  in- Subject  of  ^ 
fluence  on  the  author,  which  he  presupposes,  and  to  which  he  pianation. 
makes  allusions,  are  now  the  subject  of  the  real  explanation. 
These  relations  require  to  be  explained  by  so  much  the  more 
1)   the  more  intimately  they  are  interwoven  with  the  feelings 
and  thoughts  of  the  author,  and         2)   the  more  remote  the 
times   and   the   more   foreign    the  relations  are  to  our  own. 
These  relations  concern  partly  the  physical,  as  the  constant 
territory  of  the  author  and  of  his  nationality;  partly  the  histor- 
ical, as  the  variable  and  the  varying.     To  the  physical  explana- 


260  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

tion  belongs  quite  pre-eminently  the  geographical  ;  to  the  his- 
torical, everything  that  concerns  the  political,  religious,  and 
ethical  history,  but  also  the  current  conceptions  and  opinions, 
Old  and  new  and,  not  least  important,  the  chronological.  As  long  as  the 
spiration  as  Bible  was  refirarded  pre-eminently  as  a  dogmatic  text-book,  or 
affecting  the  as  Jong  as  men  did  homage  to  an  abstract  doctrme  of  mspira- 
ation!  tion,  so  long  there  was  little  interest  and  little  capacity* for  un- 

derstanding the  sacred  books  in  this  aspect.  On  the  other 
hand,  nothing  has  contributed  in  a  higher  measure  towards 
destroying  this  doctrinal  onesidedness,  than  the  increasing 
knowledge  of  the  Holy  Land  and  its  history.  The  fundamen- 
tal view  from  which  the  more  recent  positivism  proceeds,  in 
the  explanation  of  Scripture,  is  very  different  from  that  of  the 
more  ancient  church  ;  for  while  the  latter  proceeded  from  the 
dogmatic  infallibility  of  Scripture,  the  former  proceeds  from 
the  geographical,  archaeological,  and  historical  infallibility 
thereof.  If  the  real  explanation  proceeds  without  preposses- 
sion, it  is  not  prejudicial,  but  rather  highly  profitable  to  the 
genuine  understanding  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

a)    The  Physical  and  the  Geographical. 

Cf.  K.  Furrer,  Die  Bedeutung  der  biblischen   Geographic  fur  die  biblische 
Exegese.    Zurich,  1870. 

72.    History  of  Research. 

Explora-  The  connection  between  the  nature  of  a  country  and  the 

latedbydis-  character  of  the  people  has  been  first  recognized  and  examined 

covprv  of* 

the  relation  into  in  recent  times  most  fundamentally'^  of  all  by  K.  Ritter 
m'at^re^c./'  (Comparative  Geography).    This  general  knowledge  must  also 
ciiaracterof  throw  light  on  the  special  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  land  and 
the  people,  p^^pj^^     ^g  ^\^q  knowledge  of  this  connection  brought  about  a 
renewed  interest  in  the  examination  of  the  Holy  Land,  so  this 
examination  has  continually  brought  new  gain  for  the  under- 
standing of  the  sncred  authors.     The  works  of  Robinson  and 
Smith,  "  Biblical   Researches  in   Palestine,  Mount  Sinai,  and 
Arabia  Petraea  in  1838,"  etc.,  and  ''  Later  Biblical  Researches 
in  Palestine,"  etc.,  1856,  made  an  epoch.     Since  that  time  the 


THE  PHYSICAL   AND   THE  GEOGRAPHICAL.  261 

number  of  Palestinian  explorers  and  books  of  travel  on  Pales- 
tine, Jerusalem,  etc.,  has  become  legion,  and  all  contain  val- 
uable contributions  ;  yet  the  study  of  the  Holy  Land  is  still  far 
from  being  exhausted.     Inasmuch  as  it  is  impossible  to  most 
exegetes  and  biblical  students  to  master  the  monstrous  body  of 
material,  we  call  special  attention  to  the  following  among  the 
old  and  the  new  works  :  first  of  all  the  Bible  itself,  especially  The  Bible, 
the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and   in  the  New 
Testament  the  Gospels  ;  Josephus,  especially  Bell.  Jud.  1.  III.  Josephus. 
3  (Galilee),  10  (Sea  of  Genesareth),  IV.  8  (Jordan  and  Dead 
Sea),  V.  4  (Jerusalem),  and  5  (the  Temjile)  ;  the  Onomasti-  Eusebius 
con  of  Eusebius  and  that  of  Jerome  are  worthy  of  special  men- 
tion.    Of  little  value  are  the,  at  the  same  time  rare,  works  that 
proceeded    from    the  time   of  the  Crusades.     The   following 
works  of  the  eighteenth  century  were  written  with  more  criti- 
cal and  scientific  spirit :   Relandi^  Palestina  ex  Monumentis  Eelandi. 
Veteribus  Illustrata,  1714;   F.  Hasselquist,  Iter  Palestinum,  Hasselquist 
1757  (especially  important  in  relation  to  subjects  of  natural 
history)  ;   Carsten  Niehuhr^  Vol.  iii.  of  his  Travels  in  Arabia,  Niebuhr. 
1767,   new   ed.    by    Gloyer   and   Olshausen,  1837 ;     Volney,  Voiney. 
Voyage  en  Syrie  et  en  Egypte,  1787  (vivid,  genial,  and  com- 
pendious).    Of  the  writers  of  the  nineteenth  century  we  may 
mention  :  Seetzen   (who   travelled  in   Palestine  in   the  years  Seetzen. 
1805-1807),  articles  in  Von  Zach's  Monatliche  Correspondenz, 
Bd.  17,  18,  26,  and  27,  Tagebiicher  und  Nachlass  ed.  Kruse, 
18o4f. ;  Burhhardt  (who  travelled  in  Syria  and  Egypt,  1810-  Burkhardt. 
1816),  Reisen  in  Syrien  und  Palastina,  ed.  Gesenius,  1823. 
We  have  already  spoken  of  E.  Robinson  and  the  new  era  that  Robinson, 
he  introduced  for  the  critical  and  archaeological  study  of  the 
biblical  lands.     Robinson  was  followed  by  Lynch,  Account  of  Lynch, 
the  United  States  Expedition  to  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea, 
1849  f.     Jos.  Russegger,  Vol.  iii.  of  his  Travels    in  Europe,  Kussegger. 
Asia,  and  Africa,  1847.      Rosenmuller's  Biblical  Geography  Kosenmui 
(1826),  and  Raumer's  Palestine  (1835),  appeared  already  be-  Kaumer. 
fore  the  works  of  travel  just  mentioned.    Especially  important 
is  K.  Ritter's  "  Comparative  Geography  of  the  Sinai  tic  Penin-  Hitter. 


262 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 


Tobler. 


Furrer. 
Fraas. 


Maps. 


Bochart. 
Celsius. 

Eussegger. 
Tristram. 


8ula,  of  Palestine  and  Syria,"  Vol.  ii.,  iii.,  and  iv.  of  his  "  Erd- 
kunde,"  "  a  vast  magazine  "of  all  that  relates  to  the  geography 
of  Syria  and  Palestine"  (Robinson).  Not  to  extend  the  list 
greatly,  we  mention  still  Tit.  Tobler,  "  Bethlehem  in  Paliistina, 
nach  Anschau  iind  Quellen  geschildert,"  1849.  "  Golgotha, 
seine  Kirchen  und  Kloster,"  1851.  '' Topographie  von  Jeru- 
salem und  seine  Umgebuns^en,"  1853  and  1854.  K.  Furrer' s 
"Wanderungen  durch  Palastina"  (1865),  and  Fraas,  "Das 
todte  Meer,"  1867.  "i^u's  dem  Orient,  geologische  Beobach- 
tungen,"  etc.  1867.  Toiler  is  everywhere  known  as  an  exceed- 
ingly thorough  investigator,  and  as  extraordinarily  well  ac- 
quainted with  Palestine,  and  the  book  of  Furrer,  who  wandered 
through  the  land  on  foot,  with  his  senses  about  him,  and  with  a 
penetrating  and  intelligent  relation  to  the  Bible,  bears  the 
stamp  of  most  accurate  love  for  truth  and  most  acute  faculty 
of  observation.  Indispensable,  finally,  are  the  maps,  especially 
those  of  Kiepert  and  of  Van  de  Velde,  which  latter  supersede 
most  of  the  iearlier  ones.  For  the  natural  liistory  of  Palestine 
the  learned  work  of  Bochart,  ''  Ilierozoicon,"  as  also  Celsius, 
"  Ilierobotanicon,"  are  still  always  important ;  in  a  geognostic 
point  of  view  Russegger,  especially,  and,  in  general,  Tristram, 
The  Natural  History  of  the  Bible  (London,  1867),  are  valua-' 
ble.  A  complete  exhibit  of  the  geograj^hical  and  archaeologi- 
cal helps  on  Palestine  up  to  1859  may  be  found  in  Ilerzog, 
P.  E.  XI.  40  ff. ;  of  the  most  recent  helps,  in  Scheukel's 
Bibellexikon.^     Now  with  regard  to  the  exe^etical  use  of  these 


1  There  seems  never  to  have  been  so  much  interest  manifested  in  the 
Archaeolofry,  Manners  and  Customs,  Topography,  Geolof^y,  and  Natural 
History  of  Palestine  as  at  present.  Within  the  last  few  years  societies  for 
the  promotion  of  these  branches  of  knowledj^e  have  been  formed  in  Eni:land 
and  America,  which,  with  ample  funds  at  their  command,  are  pushinj^  for- 
ward the  work  of  exploration  and  discovery  with  most  satisfactory  results. 
For  full  information  with  reference  to  these  enterprizcs  see  (for  the  Kn,'i:lish 
Society)  the  Quarterly  Statement  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  Lon- 
don, 18G9  onwards,  and  (for  the  American)  Reports  of  the  American  Pales- 
tine Exploration  Society.  See  also  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  which, 
while  valuable  on  all  departments  of  biblical  study  is  especially  valuable  on 
all  subjects  that  come  under  the  present  section.    At  the  close  of  each  article 


THE  PHYSICAL   AND   THE   GEOGRAPHICAL.  263 

lielps  the  followiusr  principal  observations  may  be  made :        1)  Observa- 

o-.     -,-,.,  ■,    n  c  1.  tionsonthe 

Smce,  mdeed,  m  the  natural  features  of  a  country  most  thmgs,  use  of  the 
as  the  conformation  and  -the  climatic  character  are  unchange- 
able, but  other  things,  as  vegetation,  fruitfulness,  and  animation, 
are  subject  to  change,  we  are  to  make  the  following  distinction, 
that  for  the  latter  the  ancient  sources,  especially  the  Bible  For  the 

^  ''  changeable 

itself,  and  Josephus,  are  the  very  best  authority;  for  the  un- the  ancient, 

1111-.-,.  1    1  .       1      f"'"  tiie  ""- 

changeable  the  old  and  the  new  accounts  as  a  general  thmg  lay  changeable 

,.,.,.  ,  -  ,  .        .         1  the  more 

claim  to  equal  credibility,  and  —  so  far  as  the  question  involves  recentheips 

'r,      I  ^    -,  ■,  t  1      more  vahia- 

scientitic  knowledge  —  the  more  recent  accounts  deserve  the  bie. 

preference.     Yet  even-  among  the  latter  we  are  to  distinguish 

with  regard  to  thoroughness  and  critical  accuracy.       2)  These  Helps  to  be 

1     1  .   11       1  1  ,  1      -,  studied 

helps,  especially  the  more  general  ones,  are  not  to  be  consulted  apart  from 

p        ^       n  '  1  •!•  I,*!  1  immediate 

for  the  nrst  time  when  one  is  driven  to  them  for  the  explana-  need, 
tion  of  a  passage  ;  since  this  would  not  only  require  too  much 
time,  but  would  also  draw  away  too  much  from  the  object  —  the 
ascertainment  of  the  sense  of  a  passage.  The  knowledge  of 
the  country  is  rather  to  be  acquired  previously  and  indepen- 
dently of  the  special  exegetical  interest. 

73.    The  Application  of  Geographical  Knowledge. 

The  occasions  that  call  for  the  application  of  the  geographi- 
cal knowledge  of  Palestine  are  partly  express  mentions  of  the 
subjects  in  question,  partly  allusions  or  intimations  that  can  be 
thoroughly  understood  only  by  means  of  this  knowledge.  This 
latter  kind  of  occasion  belongs  far  more  to  the  Old  Testament 

■will  be  found  a  full  and  discriminating  exhibit  of  the  literature  of  the  sub- 
ject discussed.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  mention  a  few  of  the  more  recent 
works  on  Palestine  :  Guerin,  Description  Geographique,  Histoirique  et 
Archeologique  de  la  Palestine,  accompagnee  de  cartes  detaillee,  3  vols. 
Paris,  1868-69,  —  a  very  scholarly  work  based  upon  long-continued  and 
careful  personal  exploration;  Derambourg,  Essai  sur  I'llistoire  et  la 
Geographic  de  la  Palestine  d'apres  les  Thalmuds  et  les  autres  Sources 
Rabbiniques,  Paris,  1867  onwards ;  Macgregor,  The  Rob  Roy  on  the  Jordan, 
Nile,  Red  Sea,  and  Genesareth,  etc.  London,  1870;  Morrison,  The 
Recovery  of  Jerusalem,  a  narrative  of  exploration  and  discovery  in  the 
City  and  the  Holy  Land,  by  Capt.  Wilson,  R.E.,  Capt.  "Wan-en,  R.E.  etc., 
with  an  Introduction  by  A.- P.  Stanley,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Westminster.  This 
latter  work  is  one  of  extreme  value  and  interest,  and  is  one  of  the  results 
of  the  English  Exploration  Fund  mentioned  above.  —  Tjr. 


264         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 
Hebrew  ap-  than  to  the  New,  because  the  Hebrew,  dfted  with  a  fine  appre- 

preciation        ,      ,  _  . 

of  Mature,  ciatiou  of  nature,  admitted  allusions  to  his  natural  surroundings 
even  into  the  highest  and  most  spiritual  thoughts.  "A  fresh  breeze 
of  nature  pervades  his  language  and  poesy.  Nay,  poets  as 
prophets  are  inexhaustible  in  sensuous  allusions  to  the  natural 
peculiarities  of  their  home  "  (Furrer).     This  lively  appreciation 

Jesus.  of  nature  is  found  also  in  Jesus :  only  think  of  his  sensuous  re- 

ferences to  the  "  birds  of  the  heavens,  that  neither  sow  nor  reap, 
and  yet  are  sustained  by  the  Heavenly  Father"  (Matt.  vi.  26), 
to  the  "  flowers  of  the  field,  that  labor  not  and  spin  not,  and  yet 
are  more  beautiful  than  Solomon  in  his  royal  glory"  (Matt, 
vi.  28,  29),  to  the  sparrows,  of  which  "  two  are  sold  for  a  far- 
thing, and  yet  not  one  of  which  falls  to  the  ground  without  the 
knowledge  and  will  of  the  Father  in  heaven "  (Matt.  x.  29), 
but  especially  his  sensuous  application  of  natural  phenomena  in 
the  parables,  an  application  that  bears  witness  as  well  to  his 
attentiveness  to  nature,  as  to  his  profound  grasp  of  the  reli- 
gious relations.  In  this  appreciation  of  the  universal  relation 
of  nature  to  spirit  and  of  spirit  to  nature,  he  contemplated 
the  sower  and  his  seed;  the  mingling  of  the  tares  with  the 
wheat ;  the  mustard-seed  small  of  itself,  yet  developing  to  a  tree- 
like plant;  the  seed  that  grows  unobserved  (Mark  iv.  2G-29). 
He  needed  not,  indeed,  to  be  prompted  by  "  a  nocturnal  storm 
just  breaking  forth  "  to  the  comparison  of  the  mysteriousness 
of  the  wind  with  the  mysteriousness  of  the  Spirit  (John  iii.  8) ; 
there  was  no  need  of  a  "  herd  of  sheep  just  passing  by  "  to 
suggest  the  comparison  of  himself  with  a  shepherd,  —  a  figure, 
indeed,  that  lay  so  near  to  the  Israelite ;  the  passing  through 
vineyards,  or  the  sight  of  the  vine-branches  which  climbed  into 
the  room,  or  of  the  vine-shaped  candlesticks  in  the  temple  — 
all  this  was  superfluous  when  he  wished  to  designate  himself 

Paul.  as  the  vine  and  his  disciples  as  the  branches.     Paul  seems  to 

have  been  altogether  different  in  this  regard  ;  ^  not  only  does 

1  A  like  contrast  is  observable  between  the  two  great  Reformers,  Luther 
and  Calvin,  —  Luther  behij^  in  this  rej^ard  quite  analogous  to  Christ, 
whereas  Calvin  finds  his  prototype  iu  Taul.  —  Tn. 


THE  PHYSICAL  AND  THE  GEOGRAPHICAL.     265 

the  author  of  the  account  of  the  Pauline  journeys  leads  us 
through  Asia  Minor  and  Greece  without  the  least  allusion  to 
the  natural  phenomena  of  these  countries,  but  even  in  his  letters 
the  Apostle  himself  displays  nothing  of  that  lively,  delicate  ap- 
preciation of  nature  jvhich  characterized  the  Master  ;  so  filled 
and  pre-occupied  is  he  by  the  thoughts  and  interests  of  the 
Christian  spiritual  life  !  On  the  other  hand  we  find  again  that 
appreciation  of  nature  in  James,  as  when  he  compares  the  rich  JameSv 
man  and  his  riches  with  the  flowers  of  the  field  which  are 
withered  by  the  scorching  sun  (i.  10,  11)  ;  when  the  waxing 
and  waning  light  of  the  heavenly  bodies  reminds  him  of  the 
"  Father  of  lights,  in  whom  there  is  no  variableness  nor  shadow 
of  turning"  (i.  17)  ;  when  the  tameable  and  the  untameable 
beasts  furnish  him  a  point  of  comparison  with  the  untameable 
tongue  (iii.  8),  or  when  the  tongue  which  serves  as  well  for 
praising  God  as  for  cursing  his  image,  man,  is  compared  with  a 
spring  which  brings  forth  brackish  [bitter]  as  well  as  sweet 
water  (iii.  10-12),  etc.  Here,  indeed,  there  is  not  much  that 
requires  explanation  ;  but  if  to  the  *'  understanding  "  belongs  not 
merely  an  intelligent  conceiving,  but  also  a  sympathetic  appre- 
ciation, a  true  understanding  of  a  biblical  author,  and  of  Jesus 
himself,  is  to  be  found  only  in  him  to  whom  that  sensuous  con- 
sideration of  nature  is  not -foreign.  Only  such  a  one  also  will 
have  an  insight  into  the  connection  between  the  natural  features 
of  the  country  and  the  spirit  of  its  inhabitants  —  even  of  its 
divinely  enlightened  inhabitants. 

74.    Peculiarities  of  the  Scenes  of  Jesus's  Work. 

But  we  have  to  do  not  only  with  appreciation  for  nature  in 

general,  but  for  the   nature   in  which,  namely,  Jesus  himself 

lived,  and  this    appreciation    presupposes  a  knowledge  of  the 

same.     The  discourses  and  facts  cited  in  the  Gospels  took  place 

in  Galilee,  and  especially  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Sea  of 

Galilee  and  on  the  Jordan  ;   they  took  place  in  Jericho  and  The  gospel 

from  there  to  Jerusalem  and  in  the  environs  of  this  city.     To  made  life- 

him  who  is  acquainted  with  these  objects,  either  through  faithful  quaintance 
.      .  ,      -     *"  .  ,  "  1    1  .  "w  ith  the 

descriptions  or  from  personal  observation,  the  gospel  history  sceuea. 
23 


266         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

will  become  incomparably  more  life-like  than  to  another ;  he 
will  be  able  to  judge  how  far  an  abstract  doctrinarianism,  which 
refers  each  and  everything  in  the  words  of  Jesus  to  dogmatic 
mysteries  or  to  symbols  and  allegories,  is  from  the  true  under- 
standing. He  who  knows  how  extraordinarily  animated  the 
Sea  of  Galilee  and  its  shores  were  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  how 
productive  the  iSsheries  were,  —  he  who  knows  how  suddenly 
storms  often  come  down  from  the  mountains  and  surprise  the 
ships,  and  can  represent  this  in  phantasy,  or  partially  reproduce 
it  from  memory,  will  be  able  to  understand  such  passages  as 
Matt.  iv.  18ff. ;  viii.  24  £f.,  et  al.,  far  more  vividly  than  he  to 
whom  this  help  is  wanting.  To  such  a  one  it  will  also  become 
clearer  why  Jesus  in  the  account  of  the  compassionate  Samari- 
tan laid  the  scene  of  the  robbery  on  the  road  between  Jericho 
and  Jerusalem.  In  particular  will  the  scenes  in  Bethany  and 
on  the  way  to  Jerusalem  be  rendered  luminous  (Matt.  xxi. 
1-11,  and  especially  Luke  xix.  28-44).  He  will  be  able  to 
throw  himself  into  the  situation  of  the  conversation"  with  the 
Samaritan  woman  at  Jacob's  well.  And  even  although  at  the 
present  time  everything  in  Jerusalem,  with  the  exception  of  the 
site,  has  undergone  great  change,  yet  only  with  the  help  of 
ancient  and  modern  descriptions  and  photographic  representa- 
tions will  the  interpreter  be  able  to  represent  to  himself  right 
clearly  the  occurrences  recounted  in  the  Gospels.  In  general, 
to  one  acquainted  with  the  country  much  hitherto  not  noticed 
will  appear  significant,  much  regarded  as  unhistorical  will  appear 
historically  true. 

75.   Unsolved  Geographical  Difficulties. 
Much,  it  is  true,  still  remains  difficult  and  enigmatical.     A 
well-known  difficulty,  pointed  out  already  by  Origen,  is  the  asser- 
tion in  John's  Gospel,  that  John  baptized  at  Bethany  (i.  28)  ; 
for    there   is    no   doubt  whatever  but  that   ^-qOavia,  and  not 

Bethany       BeOaBdpa,  is  the  genuine  readinor.     It  is  self-evident  that  the 
and  Betha-   ^    „  ,    ^  -^     ,  -,  i  .   ,  -r» 

bara.  well-known  Bethany  near  Jerusalem  cannot  be  meant.     But 

what,  if  now  —  as  Origen  (Tom.  VI.  §  24)  observes  —  there 

was  no  Bethany  at  all  on  the  Jordan,  but  only  a  Bethabara, 


THE  PHYSICAL  AND  THE  GEOGRAPHICAL.     267 

and  this  is  given  as  the  place  where  John  baptized  ?  It  might 
only,  indeed,  be  said  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel, 
wishing  to  give  himself  the  authority  of  accurate  acquaintance, 
took  counsel  here  of  his  uncertainty  !  But  yet  elsewhere  he 
shows  a  good  knowledge  of  the  places  and  their  situation  ;  cf. 
iv.  6  f. ;  xi.  18.  We  must,  therefore,  suppose  that  Bethany  on 
the  Jordan  was  an  unimportant  place,  which,  after  the  calami- 
ties that  had  befallen  the  Jewish  country,  had  in  the  third  cen- 
tury, when  Origen  visited  the  country,  vanished.  We  must,  ac- 
cordingly, after  the  example  of  a  conjecture  expressed  in  Fa- 
bricius,  Observat,  Selectae,  and  repeated  by  Wolf  (Curae  Philol. 
ad  I.e.),  Rosenmiiller,  and  recently  by  K.  Furrer,  refer  'B-qOavia 
to  the  etymology  ri^:j<  r"»a  (ship-house).  Another  difficult  point  Gadara, 
is  (Matt.  viii.  28  ;  Mark  v.  1  ;  Luke  viii.  26)  the  region,  where  Gergesa. 
the  demons  were  driven  into  the  herd  of  swine.  In  the  first 
place  the  reading  is  disputed,  since  Matthew  according  to  the 
best  witnesses,  reads  Va^apiqv^v,  but  Mark  and  Luke  read 
Vepac^vdv  (Fepacn^vajv).  But  Va^ap-qvoiv  as  well  as  Vepacrr^v^v 
conflicts  with  the  geography ;  cf.  Origen,  who  declares  that 
Gadara  is  a  town  in  Judaea,  in  the  neighborhood  of  which  the 
celebrated  baths  are  found,  but  no  trace  of  a  sea,  or  a  precipice 
from  which  the  herd  of  swine  could  plunge  ;  but  neither  could 
Gerasa  be  the  place  in  which  the  history  happened,  for  Gerasa 
is  a  town  in  Arabia  far  from  any  sea  and  any  precipice  into  a  sea. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  event  is  suitable  to  Gergesa^  which  is  in 
the  neighborhood  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  of  a  precipice  where 
the  swine  [could  have]  rushed  down.  So,  too,  the  accurate  man- 
uscripts (according  to  Origen)  have  this  reading.  (Cf.  Tischen- 
dorf,  ed.  8,  crit.  maj.  ad  Marc.  v.  1).  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  in 
the  Onomasticon,  also  confirm  this  reading.  In  favor  of  this 
also  is  the  fact  that  a  ruin,  Gersa,  at  the  declivity  of  the  Wady 
Semakh'corresponds  pretty  well  with  the  site  which  the  Evan- 
gelists presuppose  ;  cf.  W.  Thomson,  The  Land  and  the  Book,  p. 
377;  Wilson  in  the  Athenaeum,  18G6,  I.  438;  Furrer,  Die 
Bedeutung  der  biblischen  Geographic,  p.  18  f.  But  how,  then,  did 
the  readings  VaZapr^v^v  and  V€pa(rqvCiv  arise  ?     We  must  either 


268 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP.  TUE   INTERPRETER. 


suppose  that  Vcpy^a-cvwy  has  been  changed  by  the  revisers  into 
TepaoTjviov,  or  that  for  the  unknown  Gergesa,  sometimes 
Gadara,  sometimes  Gerasa,  as  the  better  known  towns,  was 
substituted.  The  question  assumes  a  different  form  with  refer- 
ence to  localities  of  important  events  not  closely  defined  by  the 

Locality  of  Evanfjelists  :  pre-eminently  the  locality  of  the  so-called  Sermon 

the  Sermon  ,       ,,  ^  •/•    •    ,  -.    -.      i       i         ,•     t 

on  the         on  the  Mount ;  for  even  if  it  is  beyond  doubt  that  this  discourse 

in  Matthew  has  received  an  augment  of  many  other  expressions, 
and  that  even  by  Luke  they  are  not  reproduced  in  their  orig- 
inal form,  yet  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  certain  that  the  fact  of  a 
discourse  lies  at  the  foundation  of  these  two,  substantially 
identical,  discourses,  in  which  discourse  Jesus  expressed  him- 
self to  his  disciples  on  the  regulations  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven 
and  on  the  conditions  of  entering  the  same.  Since  Matthew, 
as  well  as  Luke,  designates  the  locality  upon  which  or  in 
which  this  discourse  was  pronounced  only  by  the  general  ex- 
pression, used  also  elsewhere,  to  opos/  and  since  the  tradition 
taken  up  since  the  thirteenth  century,  which  calls  the  Kurun 
Ilattin  the  "  Mount  of  the  Beatitudes,"  is  altogether  uncertain 
(cf.  Robinson,  HI.  483  f.),  we  can-,  therefore,  only  hold  that 
the  mountain  in  question  is  not  far  from  the  Sea  of  Galilee  and 
probably  in  the  neighborhood  of  Capernaum  (Tell  Chum). 
Just  as  uncertain  is  the  Mount  of  the  Transfiguration.  The 
Evangelists  give  no  clue  to  the  explanation,  since  Matthew  and 
Mark  speak  in  quite  a  general  way  of  an  opo%  vi}rq\6v,  and 
Luke,  moreover,  simply  avails  himself  of  the  standing  ex- 
pression TO  6po<;.  The  only  geographical  indication  in  the  text 
itself  is  the  fact  that  the  two  first  Synoptics,  immediately  before, 
relate  an  occurrence  which  had  taken  place  in  the  region  of 
Caesarea  Philippi  (Matt.  xvi.  13  ff.  ;  Mark  viii.  27  ff.)  ;  accord- 
ingly Mount  Ilermon,  in  the  neighborhood  of  this  city,  might 
be  thought  of  ;  but  the  circumstance  that  the  Transfiguration 
took  place,  according  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  six  days  after  that 
event,  according  to  Luke   eight  days,  makes   this  conjecture 


Mount  of 
the  Trans- 
figuration. 


1  Cf.  Th  opos  Matt.  V.  1;  Luke  vi.  12;  Mark  iii.  13. 


THE  PHYSICAL  AND  THE  GEOGRAPHICAL.     269 

altogether  uncertain.^  Since  Cyril  and  Jerome,  ecclesiastical 
tradition  has  designated  the  Tabor  as  the  Mount  of  the  Trans- 
figuration ;  but  this  tradition  also  is  of  too  late  an  origin  to  be 
built  upon,  and  besides,  Robinson  (III.  464  ff.)  has  shown  it  as 
probable  that  at  the  time  of  Jesus  a  castle  stood  on  the  Tabor, 
—  not  a  suitable  place  for  a  solemn  scene !  The  most  impor- 
tant disputed  geographical  question  is  that  with  reference  to  the 
genuine  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  Here  especially  must  it  The  Holy 
be  shewn  to  what  degree  of  probability  the  exegetical,  histor-  ^^ 
ical,  and  geographical  helps  can  bring  this  contested  point.  We 
can  here  give  only  the  principal  points,  to  which  the  biblical 
student  has  to  direct  his  attention.  The  first  question  is  :  What 
say  the  evangelical  accounts?  The  following  passages  here 
come  into  consideration  :  Matt,  xxvii.  32  ;  Mark  xv.  21 ;  Luke 
xxiii.  26,  33  ;  John  xix.  20,  41,  42,  coll.  xx.  2-4.  These  pas- 
sages make  throughout  the  impression  that  the  place  of  skulls 
and  the  sepulchre  were  outside  of  the  city,  which  is  also  in 
itself  decidedly  the  most  probable.  But  now  the  church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  is  found  inside  the  present  city,  in  the  North- 
west part  thereof,  in  the  so-called  Christian  quarter.  We  have 
thus  the  alternative,  either  that  the  city  of  to-day  extends  con- 
siderably farther  on  this  side  than  at  the  time  of  Jesus,  or  that 
the  traditional  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  is  unwnuine.     The  Topographj 

•^         ^  ®  of  the  an- 

second  question  is,  accordingly  that  with  reojard  to  the  topog-  cient  Jeru- 

.         -r  1  1  ■  1     •  salem. 

raphy  of  the  ancient  Jerusalem  and  its  relation  to  the  present 

Jerusalem.  On  this  point  Josephus  (Bell.  Jud.  V.  4)  instructs 
us  ;  from  whom  we  learn  that  the  upper  city  was  separated 
from  the  Temple  Hill  by  the  Tyropoeon  valley,  and  that  the 
city  in  his  time  was  surrounded  by  three  walls.  But  of  these, 
the  third,  as  first  built  by  Herod  Agrippa,  falls  out  of  consider- 
ation. Yet  apart  from  this,  the  description  leaves  us  in  doubt, 
1)  as  to  the  precise  direction  of  the  Tyropoeon,  and  2)  as 
to  the  situation  and  direction  of  the  second  wall,  and,  in  con- 
nection with  this,  how  far  the  city  stretched  towards  the  North- 

1  The  apparent  discrepancy  is  easily  accounted  for  by  supposing  different 
methods  of  reckoning  in  the  two  cases.  —  Tr. 
23* 


270         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

west.  On  these  points  depends  essentially,  the  decision  of  the 
question  as  to  the  genuineness  or  spuriousness  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre.  Cf.  Schaffter^  on  the  genuine  site  of  the  Holy  Sepul- 
chre and  Toiler,  as  above.  But  how  much  has  befallen  Jerusalem 
in  the  course  of  time,  and  how  many  changes  of  the  ground  has 
the  place  suffered  ?  The  third  question,  therefore,  must  be : 
What  says  What  says  history  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  ?  We  meet  with  a 
the  Holy  mention  of  this  place  first  in  Eusebius  (Vita  Const.  HI.  23  f.), 
epuc  re  ^j^^^  j^  Socrates  (I.  17),  Sozomon  (H.  1),  and  Jerome  (Ep.  49 
ad  Paulin.)  ;  these  writers  relate,  that  this  place  had  been  demol- 
ished by  godless  men,  and  a  temple  of  Venus  erected  on  the 
spot,  until  Constantine  at  last  removed  the  earth  and  the  rub- 
bish, and  had  a  gorgeous  basilica  built  on  the  spot,  etc.  But 
this  basilica  long  since  ceased  to  exist,  having  been  destroyed  in 
A.D.  614,  when  Judaea  was  invaded  by  the  Persians.  The 
Church  of  the  Sepulchre  was  several  times  rebuilt,  and  as  often 
destroyed  again  (sc.  a.d.  969  and  1187).  The  present  church 
•  of  the  Sepulchre,  a  work  of  the  Greeks,  dates  only  from  a.d. 
1810.  History,  therefore,  gives  us  not  the  least  clue  to  the 
genuine  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  and  we  turn,  accordingly, 
as  a  last  resort  to  the  works  of » the  new  critical  investigators, 
among  whom,  after  Robinson,  Tohler  is  the  most  thorough. 
Thus  difficult  is  this  question  !  Happily  it  is  not-  immediately 
and  necessarily  connected  with  the  exegesis.  In  every  case 
these  investigations  are  to  be  undertaken  independently  of  the 
explanation  of  the  text. 

h)    The  Historical. 

Principal  Sourco:  Josephi,  Antiquit.  Jud.  1.  XI.-XX.  Helps,  pre-eminently: 
Sausrath,  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichle.  Ewald,  Ceschichte  Israels, 
Bd.  IV. -VI.  [ihis  work  has  been  also  published  in  F^nglish].  Keim,  Gcs- 
chichte  Jesu  von  Kazara,  Bd.  I.  S.  17.3-306 [Vol.  I.  and  II  in  En/?.];  [Schurer, 
Geschichte  der  N.  T.  Zeitalter(Eng.  in  preparation);  Xeander,  Planting:  and 
Training  of  the  Christian  Church  (Robinson's  cd.);  (Ueseler,  Church  History, 
Vol.  I.  Andrews,  Life  of  our  Lord;  Various  Articles  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  the 
Bible]. 

76,    Politico-religious  Features.   Sources. 
He  who  jmsses  from  the  Old  Testament  historical  books ' — 

even  from  the  books  of   Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and  the  post- 


THE   HISTORICAL.  271 

exilian  prophets  —  to  the  Gospels,  finds,  so  to  speak,  everything  Great  polit- 

changed ;  not  only  has  the  old  Persian  Empire,  under  which 

the  Judaeans  that  returned  lived,  passed  away  three  or  four 

hundred  years  ago,  but  also  the  great  Greek-Macedonian  Empire 

—  with  its  offspring,  the  Ptolemaic  Empire  in  the  South,  and 

the  Antiochian  Empire  in  the  North  —  had*  long  since  vanished  ; 

even  the  Maccabees  or  Asmonaeans,  whose  rise  and   heroic 

deeds  are  narrated  in  the  first  book  of  the  Maccabees,  and  their 

priestly  kingdom,  together   with   the  departing  flower  of  the 

Jewish  state,  are  no  longer  mentioned  at  all ;  even  of  the  Hero- 

dians  scarcely  more  than  a  shadow  remains  ;  on  the  other  hand, 

the  omnipotent  Romans  as  the  lords  of  the  land,  and  Judaea 

under  a  Roman  procurator  !     How  has  all  this  come  about,  and 

what  are  the    more   immediate    circumstances  of  these  great 

changes  ?     Even  in  a  reliqious  relation  so  much  has  become  dif-  Religious 
°  ''  changes, 

f  erent :  there  is  an  important  difference,  indeed,  already  between 

the  condition  of  the  people  of  which  the  ante-exilian  prophet  Jere- 
miah bears  witness  and  the  condition  and  spirit  which  pervade 
the  prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah  and  the  books  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  but  a  still  greater  difference  between  the  post-exilian 
conditions  and  those  of  the  time  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles ;  there 
we  find  the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  as  long  existing  and 
well-known  religious  parties  ;  we  find  a  whole  class  of  literarati 
(ypafx/xaTei^,  vo/u.oStSacrKaA.ot,  vofxiKoi),  a  traditional  orthodoxy, 
and,  side  by  side  with  the  temple- worship,  a- synagogue-worship, 
and  so  much  else.  To  be  acquainted  with  this  politico-religious 
ground  on  which  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  moved  and  wrought 
is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  the  understanding  of  the  New 
Testament.  Josep/ms,  who  is  here  throughout  the  principal  Josephua 
source,  gives  in  Book  XI.  of  his  Antiquities  the  period  from  pal  source, 
the  return  from  the  Exile  to  Alexander,  in  XII.  the  history 
from  Ptolemaeus  Lagi  to  the  death  of  Judas  Maccabaeus,  in 
XIII.  the  time  from  the  death  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  to  the  death 
of  Alexandra  the  daughter-in-law  of  Aristobulus,  in  XIV.  from 
this  time  to  the  appointment  of  the  Idumaean  Herod  as  king 
of  Judaea  by  Caesar  and  the  Roman  senate ;  in  XV.  the  fall 


272  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP   THE   INTERPRETER. 

of  the  Asmonaean  dynasty  and  the  reign  of  Herod  the  Great  till 
the  building  of  the  new  temple,  in  XVI.  the  reign  of  Herod  till 
the  execution  of  his  sons  Alexander  and  Aristobulus,  in  XVH. 
the  last  years  of  Herod's  reign  till  the  deposition  and  banishment 
of  Archelaus.  Book  XVIII.  treats  of  the  census  of  Quirinius, 
conducted  by  the  tetrarchs  Herod  Antipas  and  Philip,  then  of  the 
procuratorfchip  of  P.  Pilatus  to  the  conflict  of  the  Jews  with  the 
Emperor  Caius  Caligula,  XIX.  of  the  death  of  Caius  Caesar 
and  the  reign  of  Herod  Agrippa  I.  to  his  death,  and  XX. 
from  this  point  to  the  last  procurator  Gessius  Florus  and  to  the 
beginning  of  the  Jewish  war.  It  is  obvious  that  for  the  history 
of  Jesus  books  XYII.  and  XYIII.  are  especially  important, 
for  the  understanding  of  which,  however,  a  knowledge  of  the 
preceding  history  is  necessary.  With  the  last  books  of  the  An- 
tiquities, however,  the  first  books  of  the  Jewish  war,  especially 
what  is  said  of  the  last  years  of  Herod  the  Great  (L),  and  of 
the  events  from  the  death  of  this  ruler  to  the  breaking  out  of  the 
Jewish  war  (II.),  are  to  be  compared.  The  same  author  gives 
much  that  is  worthy  of  attention  in  his  autobiography  and  in 

Fhilo.  his  two  books  cont.  Apionem.  Philo  also  is  important,  not 
only  as  a  representative  of  the  Jewish-Alexandrine  theosophy, 
but  also  on  account  of  his  description  of  the  Therapeutae  with 
whom  the  P2ssenes  are  related  (''quod  omnis  probus  liber "). 
With  regard  -to  customs,  usages,  and  opinions  of  the  Jews,  to 
which  allusion  is  frequently  made  in  tl>e  New  Testament,  the 

Talmud  and  Talmud  and  the  Hahhins  are  of  great  importance,  and  hence 
the  collections  of  Lightfoot,  Schottgen,  Meuschen,  Wetstein, 
and  of  Nork  ("  Rabbinische  Parallelen  zum  N.  T.")  are  very 
thankworthy.  But  in  this,  attention  must  be  always  directed 
to  the  matter  of  ascertaining  whether  the  usages  and  opinions 
there  adduced  were  current  at  the  time  of  Jesus  and  the  Apos- 
tles, or  are  of  later  origin. 

77.   N.  T.  Chronology, 
A  subject  of  the  real  explanation  just  as  difficult  as  impor- 

Bibiical       tant  is  the  chronological.     The  difficulty  has  its  ground  for  the 

havenoera.  Hiost  part  in  the  fact  that  the  biblical  historians  have  no  era. 


THE   HISTORICAL.  273 

While  the  Greek  historians  have  in  their  Olympiadic  computa- 
tion (B.C.  776),  and  the  Roman  historians  in  their  reckoning 
ab  urbe  condita  (b.c.  754),  a  fixed  point  of  departure,  the 
Oriental  —  and  biblical  —  writers  are  without  any  such  fixed 
point,  reckoning  according  to  the  years  of  the  reign  of  the 
rulers ;  cf.  Amos  i.  1  ;  Hos.  i.  1 ;  Isa.  i.  1  and  vi.  1 ;  Mic.  i.  1 ; 
Jer.  i.  2,  3  ;  iii.  6  ;  xxi.  1  ;  xxv.  1  ;  xxvi.  1  ;  xxxii.  1 ;  xxxv. 
1 ;  xxxvi.  1.  An  era,  only  transient,  of  course,  for  later 
writers  was  the  Jewish  deportation  to  Babylon  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar (Jer.  xxiv.  1 ;  xxxiv.  1  ;  2  Kings  xxv.  27).  In  the  time  Post-exil- 
after  the  Exile  the  reckoning  was  according  to  the  reigns  of 
the  Persian  rulers  (Ezra  i.  1  ;  Neh.  ii.  1  ;  Hagg.  i.  1  ;  Zech. 
i.  1).  But  the  New  Testament  writers,  with  one  exception,  paucity  of 
give  no  points  of  contact  at  all  with  profane  history  ;  but  this  n.t.  chro 
one  (Luke  iii.  1,  2)  is  on  this  account  so  much  the  more  im- °°  ^^' 
portant ;  but  it  does  not  suffice  for  determining  chronologically 
even  the  most  important  facts  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Still  more 
defective  are  the  chronological  indications  for  the  apostolic 
age.  The  question  therefore  arises,  How  under  such  circum- 
stances can  we  attain  to  an  at  least  approximate  determination 
of  the  principal  events  of  the.  New  Testament  ?  In  the  gospel 
history  the  procuratorship  of  Pilate  (a.d.  14-36),  and  for  the 
history  of  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus  the  mention  of 
Herod  the  Great,  form  fixed  points  of  contact  (yet  see  §  78). 
For  the  history  of  the  Apostles  we  have,  in  the  death  of  Herod 
Agrippa  I.  (Acts  xii.  23  ;  JosejDh.  Antiq.  XIX.  8,  2),  and  in 
the  procuratorship  of  Felix  (Acts  xxiii.  24  ff.),  and  of  Fortius 
Festus  (Acts  xxiv.  27),  welcome  points  of  contact,  since  this 
change  in  the  procuratorship  took  place  probably  towards  the 
end  of  the  year  60  (a.d.),  and  thectwo  first  years  of  Paul's  im- 
prisonment at  Rome  must  in  any  case  have  preceded  the  con- 
flagration of  Rome  and  the  Nerouian  persecution  (a.d.  64)  ;  so 
it  follows,  that  the  imprisonment  of  Paul  in  Caesarea  and  Rome 
must  lie  within  the  period  59-64. 

78.    Unsettled  Chronological  Questions, 
Nevertheless,  several  difficult  Questions,  as  well  in  reference 


274         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

to  the  history  of  Jesus  as  in  reference  to   the  apostolic  era, 
remain.     These,  together  with  some  indications  as  to  how  the 
interpreter  is  to  act  in  relation  to  them,  are  here  to  be  observed. 
The  year  of  There  is,  first  of  all,  the  well-known  question  about  the  year  of 
birth.  Jesus's  birth.     The  principal  passage  from  which  we  may  hope 

to  determine  this  point,  and  according  to  which  the  Roman 
abbot,  Dionysius  Exiguus,  has  reckoned  the  time  at  753  a.u.c, 
is  Luke  iii.  1  coll.  23.  Here,  first  of  all,  only  the  time  of  the 
appearance  of  John  the  Baptist  is  pointed  out,  but  in  that  the 
baptism  of  Jesus  is  supposed  to  belong  to  the  same  year,  and 
Jesus  is  declared  in  the  latter  passage  to  have  been  dp;(oyut€vos 
a)o-€t  Itu)v  rptaKovra,  we  may  draw  a  conclusion  with  reference 
to  the  year  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus  himself.  Know- 
ing that  Augustus  died  Aug.  19,  767  (u.c.  =  14  A.  Dion.), 
thie  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  =  Aug.  781  to  Aug.  782.  Now 
it  is  still  questionable  whether  this  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  is 
reckoned  from  his  coregency  (764—765)  or  from  his  monarchy 
(767-768  A.u.c.)  ;  yet  the  latter  is  more  probable.  If  now 
we  reckon  backward  from  782,  about  twenty-nine  years, 
we  come  to  the  Dionysian  result  of  753  a.u.c.  as  the  year  of 
Jesus's  birth.  But  in  this  is  presupposed,  1)  That  the  fifteen 
years  are  reckoned  from  the  monarchy  of  Tiberius,  2)  that 
the  baptism  of  Jesus  took  place  in  the  same  year  in  which  the 
Baptist  made  his  appearance,  and  3)  that  the  statement  of 
Jesus's  age  is  exact ;  but  none  of  this  is  raised  above  doubt.  A 
second  chronological  indication  of  Luke,  that  the  appearance 
of  the  Baptist  took  place  under  the  procuracy  of  Pontius 
Pilate  (the  year  is  not  given),  leads  us  to  a  time  between  779 
and  789.  The  third  indication  TCTpapxovvTo<i  tt}^  TaXiXatas 
'HpwSov  K.  T.  X.  is  by  no  means  definite,  for  Herod  Antipas 
reigned  from  750  to  792.-'  Another  chronolosrical  determina- 
tion  of  the  year  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  is  drawn  from  Matt,  ii., 
according  to  which  Jesus  must  have  been  born  in  the  last  year 
of  the  reign  of  Herod  the  Great.     But  now  Herod  died  already 

1  Just  as  little  regard  could  be  had  to  the  disputed  Lysanias  (Luke  i.  1, 
2),  as  to  the  Census  (.Luke  ii.  1  ff.). 


THE  HISTORICAL.  275 

in  750  A.u.C.  (cf.  Wurm  in  Bengel's  Archiv.  I.  26  f.     Ideler's 
Chronol.  II.  391  f.      Wieseler' s  Chronol.  Synops.  52  f.),  and 
Jesus  could  accordingly  have  been  born   scarcely  later   than 
748  A.u.C.     Some  have  thought,  also,  to  find  a  third  help  in 
the  star  of  the  Magi  (Matt.  ii.  2),  and  to  be  able  to  bring  it 
into  connection  with  a  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  to 
which  IMars  came  still  later  ;  but,  to  say  nothing  of  the  legen- 
dary character  of  the  account,  it  must,  in  that  case,  have  been 
not  do-rrip,  but  aarpov.      All    considerable    chronologists    and 
investigators  of  the  life  of  Jesus  agree  in  the  more  than  prob- 
able conjecture  that  Jesus  was  born  at  least  four  or  five  years 
before  the  Dionysian  era.     But  if  it  is  declared  that  with  the 
legend  of  the  Magi  the  connection  of  Herod  the  Great  with 
the  birth  of  Jesus  stands  or  falls,  and  if  the  statement  in  Luke 
(iii.  1)  is  held  to  be  uncertain,  any  determination  of  the  year 
of  Jesus's  birth  from  this  indication  must  be  given  up.     Not 
less  disputed  is  the  year  of  Jesus's  death.   On  the  ground  of  the  Jea^^of 
Dionysian  reckoning  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  the  indication  death, 
of  the  fourth  Evangelist  that  Jesus's  messianic  activity  embraced 
three  Passovers  (ii.  13 ;  vi.  4;  xii.  1,  and  xiii.  1),  the  view  has 
been    confirmed    that   Jesus    died    in   the    year    thirty-three 
(A.  Dion.).     But  this  view  is  shaken  not    only  through    the 
conviction  that  the  Dionysian  reckoning  of  the  year  of  Christ's 
birth  is  by  several  years  too  late,  but  also  through  the  consid- 
eration that  the  Synoptics  seem  to  know  only  of  one  Messianic 
year  ;^  a  consideration  which  receives  a  strong  additional  support 
from  the  doubt  as  to  the  historical  character  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel.    In  any  case  it  is  indispensable  for  those  that  mean  to  go  to 
work  here  only  somewhat  critically,  either  to  prove  in  how  far 
and  why  the  Synoptics  mention  only  one  journey  of  Jesus  to 
the  feast,  and  hence  seem  to  speak  of  but  a  ministry  of  a  single 
year  ;  or,  to  show  on  plausible  grounds,  why  the  fourth  Gospel 
supposes  a  ministry  of  three  years.     Both  are  difficult.     The 
1  That  the  S3moptics  give  no  intimation  of  the  second  and  thu-d  Passo- 
ver-feast is  no  sure  evidence  that  they  know  nothing  of  these.    The  ohject 
Df  the  narratives  may  have  precluded  the  mention  of  the  other  Passovers. 
-Te. 


276         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 

attempts,  from  the  day  of  Jesus's  death,  and  especially  from  the 
darkness,  to  be  calculated  astronomically,  to  determine  the  year 
of  liis  death,  are  thwarted  already  by  the  simple  fact  that  this 
darkness,  coming  at  the  time  of  the  (Paschal)  full  moon,  can- 
not have  been  an  eclipse  of  the  sun.  These  are  only  the 
elements  of  the  investigation  of  this  subject.  The  exegete,  as 
suchj  is  seldom  called  upon  to  go  beyond  these  elements,  while 
to  the  historical  student  the  thorough  knowledsje  of  the  various 
hypotheses  and  a  weighing  of  them  is  indisiDensable.  Cf.  esp. 
The  day  of  Keini's  Gesch.  Jesu,^  III.  479  ff.  Still  more  important  than 
death.^  the  dispute  about  the  year  of  Jesus's  death  is  that  about  the  day 
of  his  death,  —  a  controversy  which,  as  is  well  known,  rests 
upon  a  difference  between  the  account  of  the  Synoptics,  according 
to  which  Jesus  with  his  disciples  partook  of  the  Paschal  meal 
itself,  and  died  the  day  after  (Matt.  xxvi.  17  ;  Mark  xiv.  12, 14 ; 
Luke  xxii.  7,  8,  15),  and  the  Johannean  representation,  ac- 
cording to  which  Jesus  partook  of  the  last  meal  with  his  dis- 
ciples before  the  Passover  day,  and  died  on  the  day  on  the 
evening  of  which  the  Paschal  meal  should  first  occur  (xiii.  1  ; 
xviii.  28,  coll.  xix.  14).  In  two  points,  however,  the  Synoptics 
and  John  concur  again,  viz.  1)  in  the  statement  that  the 

day  of  Jesus's  death  was  the  Trapaa-Kcv-Q  (Matt,  xxvii.  G2  ;  Mark 
XV.  42  ;  Luke  xxiii.  54;  John  xix.  31,  42),  and  2)  that  the 
first  day  of  the  week  (/xta  tojv  aa/B/SoiToiv)  was  the  resurrection 
day  (Matt,  xxviii.  1 ;  Mark  xvi.  2  ;  Luke  xxiv.  1 ;  John  xx.  1). 
This  matter,  even  after  the  many  thorough  investigations  in 
this  field,"  which,  of  course,  have  had  to  take  into  consideration 

1  This  excellent  work  is  being  translated  into  English.  Vols.  i.  and  ii. 
have  already  appeared.  —  Tii. 

2  We  mention  here  only  Weitzel,  Die  christliche  Passahfcier  der  drei 
ersten  Jahrhunderte,  1848.  Steifz,  Die  Different  der  Occidentalen  und  der 
Kleinasiaten,  Thcol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1856,  and  Art.  "  Pascha,"  in 
Herzog's  II.  E.  Rifjgenhach,  Die  Zeugnissc  fiir  das  Evang.  Johan.  Progr. 
1866.  Per  contra,  IlUfjevfehl,  Der  Paschastrcit  und  die  Evang.  Johan. 
(Theol.  Jahrhiichcr,  1849),  Das  Johannes-Evang.  und  die  Paschastreitig- 
keiten  (Thcol.  Jahrbiicher,  1857),  Noch  ein  Wort  uher  den  Paschastreit 
(Zeitschrift  fiir  wisscnschaftliche  Theologie,  1858).  Baur,  Der  Paschas- 
treit  gegen  Steitz  (Theol.  Jahrbuchcr,.1857),  Entgegnung  gegen  Hrn.  Dr. 


THE   HISTORICAL.  277 

the  Passover  controversy  of  the  second  century,  furnishes  "a 

subject  for  much    thought.     The  decision  depends,  1)   on 

the  exegetical  explanation  of  the  passage  under  consideration 

in  John,         2)   on  the  view  of  the  relative  credibility  of  the 

three  first  and  the  fourth  Evangelists,  and         o)  on  the  punc- 

tum  quaestionis  in  the  Paschal  controversies.     There  is  an  im-  Life  and 

^  IT  activity  of 

portant  chronological  question  with  regard  to  the  apostolic  age,  Paul. 

and  especially  with  regard  to  the  chronology  of  the  life  and 
activity  of  Paul,  The  principal  passage  here  is  Gal.  ii.  1  coll. 
i.  18.  But  from  what  point  are  the  fourteen  years  reckoned, 
after  the  lapse  of  which  Paul  made  the  journey  to  Jerusalem 
for  the  purpose  of  coming  to  an  understanding  with  the  original 
Apostles  ?  It  seems  most  natural,  first  of  all,  that  it  should 
have  been  reckoned  from  his  first  visit  to  Jerusalem.  This 
took  place,  as  seems  to  follow  from  i.  18,  not  until  three  years 
after  his  conversion ;  but  the  time  of  the  latter  event  is,  for  the 
present,  completely  uncertain.  Only  so  much  must  be  granted, 
that  the  persecutions  of  those  that  confessed  Christ,  and  hence 
the  Christians  themselves,  must  have  become  already  by  that 
time  quite  prevalent,  which  could  only  have  been  the  case 
a  considerable  time  after  the  decease  of  Jesus.  But  then  not 
only  the  question  ''how  long  after  this  event?"  but  also  the 
uncertainty  with  regard  to  the  year  of  the  death  of  Jesus, 
leaves  us  in  the  dark.  This  is  the  problem  which  awaits  its 
solution.  This  problem  becomes  considerably  more  complicated 
through  the  difference  between  Acts  ix.  20-29  and  Gal.  i.  16, 
17;  but  especially  through  the  question,  whether  th'e  transac- 
tion Gal.  ii.  1-10  is  identical  with  the  Apostolic  convention 
Acts  XV.  How  now  are  we  to  proceed  in  the  face  of  such 
difficulties  ?  By  no  means  are  we  to  seek,  in  the  first  instance, 
to  clear  up  the  relation  between  Acts  xv.  and  Gal.  ii.,  or  to 

Steitz  (Zeitschrift  fiir  wissensch.  Theol.,  1857).  KeAm,  Gescht.  Jesu  von 
Naz.  Ill  457  fF.  Scholten,  Das  Evan<2:.  nach  Johan.  iibersetzt  von  Lang, 
p.  282  BE".  [See  also  valuable  discussions  in  Robinson's  oxid  Gardiner's 
Greek  Harmonies.  Ginsburg,  Art.  Passover  in  Kitto's  Cyc.  of  Bib.  Lit. 
Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (Am.  ed.),  Art.  "  Passover,"  with  numerous  ref- 
erences to  English  and  German  works]. 
24 


278  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

aim  at  establishing  any  harmony  at  all  between  the  two  passages 

Method  of    at  all  hazards;  but  we  are,        1)  either  to  take  as  our  starting- 
procedure.        •       i-i  1    ••  I'll  .  1  .        ,  . 
pomt  (jal.  11.,  etc.,  and  with  the    utmost    rigor    explum    this 

altogether  independently  of  Acts  xv.,  or  to   proceed    in  like 

manner  with  Acts  xv.  without  reference  to  Gal.  ii. ;        2)  then 

the  other  passage  is  to  be  compared  with  this,  and  the  points 

of  agreement  and  difference  are,  with  all  conscientiousness,  to 

be  brought  out  and    the  result  estimated ;         3)    we  are    to 

make  the  chronological  reference  from  Gal.  ii.  1  to  i.  18  and, 

if  possible,  still  further,  to  the  time  of  Paul's  conversion,    in 

which  process  the  passage  2  Cor.  xi.  32  coll.  Josephus,  XVIII. 

5,  1  and  3  (mention  of  king  Aretas)  must  be  brought  to  our  aid. 

How  difficult  these  investigations  are,  is  shown  by  a  glance  at  the 

various  results  of  students  from  Eusebius  and  the  Chronicon 

Paschale  down  to  Ewald  and  TVieseler,  in  that  the  conversion 

of  Paul  is  put  by  Jerome  and  Petavius  in  the  year  33  (a.d.), 

by  Usher,  Pearson,  Hug,  Sanclemente,  Idele-r,  and  Olshausen 

in  35,  by  Basnage,  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  De  Wette,   Kohler, 

Schott  in  37,  by  Winer,  Anger,  Ewald  in  38,  by  Spanheim, 

Bcrtholdt,  Wieseler  in  40,  finally  by  Wurm  in  the  year  41.^ 

Although  it  cannot  be  the  calling  of  every  exegete  to  make 

exhaustive  studies  of  this  and  other  chronological,  questions,  yet 

it  is  every  exegete's  duty,  if  he  comes  to  the  explanation  of 

the  passages  in  question,  at  least  to  bring  clearly  before  his 

mind  the  problem  and  to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  the  most 

essential  means  to  the  explanation. 

79.    Historical   Difficulties. 

But,  chronological  difficulties  aside,  the  interpreter  runs  upon 

historical   diJ^cuUies    and   contradictions.     We  adduce    here 

The  Census,  only  the  better  known  and  more  palpable.  1)   The  Census 

(Luke  ii.  1  f.).     Tliis  is  at  variance  not    only  with  Josephus 

1  The  last  edition  of  Meyer's  Commentary  on  Acts  contains  a  very 
valual)le  table,  exhibiting  the  chronological  results  of  most  of  the  great 
investigators,  wi:h  reference  not  only  to  Paul's  conversion,  but  also  the 
other  prominent  events  of  liis  life.  Dr.  Ilackett  fixes  on  a.d.  36  as  the 
probable  date  of  Paul's  conversion.  For  much  that  is  valuable  on  this 
whole  subject  see  his  very  able  Commentary  on  Act:^.  —  Tb. 


THE   HISTORICAL.  279 

(Antiq.  XVIII.  1,  1),  but  also  with  the  political  relations,  inas- 
much as  Quirinius  under  whom  the  census  is  said  to  have  been 
undertaken,  was  not  proconsul  of  Syria  until  ten  years  later ; 
inasmuch  as  a  general  census  of  the  Empire  could  not  at  that 
time  have  extended  to  Palestine,  Palestine  not  having  become 
a  Roman  province  until  759  (a.tj.c),  and,  inasmuch  as,  even 
if  such  a  census  had'  taken  place,  this  would  not  have  made 
it  necessary  for  Joseph  to  repair  with  his  betrothed  from  Naz- 
areth to  Bethlehem.  Is  the  interpreter  now  to  assume  that. 
Luke  merely  feigned  the  census  in  order  to  bring  Joseph  and 
Mary,  in  accordance  with  the  legend,  to  Bethlehem  ?  This 
would  be  frivolous.  The  exegete  must  rather  endeavor  to 
remove  the  contradiction,  or  at  least  to  explain  it.  The 
following  are  such  attempts  at  explanation :  the  limitation  of 
the  expression  Tracra  rj  olKovfJLevrj  to  the  Roman  Empire  (orbis 
terrarum),  an  attempt  which,  however,  leaves  the  principal 
difficulty  unsolved ;  the  supposition  that  a  census,  to  be  sure, 
occurred,  Ijiit  that  this  has  erroneously  been  regarded  as  pro- 
ceeding from  Augustus  (instead  of  from  Herod),  —  a  shift 
which,  of  course,  would  have  to  be  otherwise  confirmed.  The 
only  supposition  left,  therefore,  is,  that  Lake,  or  rather  his 
autjiorities,  has  fallen  into  an  anachronism,  and  has  transferred 
the  notorious  census  (Joseph.  I.e. ;  Acts  v.  37)  to  the  time  of 
Jesus's  birth,  with  which  has  been  connected  another  uuhistorical 
circumstance,  the  journey  of  Mary  to  Bethlehem.  2)  Li/sa-  Lysanias. 
nias  (Luke  iii.  2).  This  person  is  said  to  have  been  tetrarch 
of  Abilene  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius ;  but,  from  history, 
is  known  to  us  only,  on  the  one  hand,  an  elder  Lysani^is,  who 
was  murdered  by  Antonius  at  the  instigation  of  Cleopatra  718 
A.u.c.  (Joseph.  Antiq.  XV.  4,  1  ;  Dio  Cassius  49,  32),  on  the 
other  hand,  a  younger  Lysanias,  who  died  in  the  time  of  the  Em- 
peror Caligula  (Joseph.  Antiq.  XlX.  5,  1 ;  Bell.  Jud.  IL  11, 5  ; 
12,  8).  Besides,  the  domain  of  that  elder  Lysanias  is  designated 
by  Josephus  as  Chalcis,  definitely  distinguished  from  that  of 
the  younger,  and  Abila,  as  belonging  only  to  the  tetrarchy  of 
the  later  Lysanias.     Here  the  facts  of  the  case  are  not  clear 


280  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

enough  to  admit  of  a  decisive  judgment.  Whether  a  province 
of  the  elder  Lysanias  remained  in  his  family,  whether  the  later 
Lysanias  belonged  to  the  family  of  the  elder,  etc.,  must  for 
the  present  rest  entirely  on  itself.  An  anachronism,  or  a  con- 
TheGeneai-  founding  of  names,  seems  here  also  to  find  place.^  3)  The 
genealogies^  of  Jesus  furnish  a  two-fold  difficulty  (Matt.  i.  1-17 
and  Luke  iii.  23  to  the  end  of  the  chapter)  :  on  the  one  hand, 
the  difference  of  these  among  themselves,  the  genealogy  in 
Luke  numbering  not  only  fifty-six  members  instead  of  forty- 
two  between  Jesus  and  Abraham,  but  also  containing  between 
Joseph  and  Zerubbabel,  and  then  again  between  Salathiel  and 
David,  entirely  different  names.  The  explanations  of  these 
differences  from  the  levirate  marriage,  or  from  the  circumstance 
that  Mary  was  an  heiress,  are  familiar,  —  suppositions  that 
only  partially  solve  the  difficulty.  The  notion  that  the  one 
genealogy  gives  the  line  of  Joseph,  the  other  that  of  Mary 
.  should  be  forever  buried  and  forgotten.  The  other  difficulty 
lies  in  the  contradiction  between  the  intention  of  these 
genealogies,  which  consists  in  representing  Jesus  as  a  genuine 
descendant  of  David  and  Abraham  (cf.  also  Rom.  i.  3),  and  the 
supernatural  birth  which  is  narrated  by  precisely  those  Evan- 
gelists that  have  also  the  genealogy.  That  the  Evangelists 
themselves  perceived  this  contradiction  and  sought  to  remove 
it  is  evident  from  Matt.  i.  1 6,  and  still  more  from  Luke  iii.  23. 
What  now  are  exegesis  and  criticism  to  do  here  ?  No  apolo- 
getics, of  course,  can  change  a  whit  the  fact  that  —  if  Jesus 
sprang  on  the  paternal  side  from  David  —  he  could  not  then 
have  been  supernaturally  begotten,  or  if  this,  then  he  was  not 
Ik  o-TT^pfxaTo^  Aam8.  The  literary  contradiction  is  easily  solved : 
the  Evangelists  found  the  tradition  that  Jesus  is  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham  and  David,  as  well  as  that  of  his  supernatural  con- 
ception ;  they  gave  both,  and,  at  the  same  time,  an  intimation 

1  See  Godet  and  Meyer,  Comm.  -in  loco;  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  Art. 
Lysanias.  —  Tr. 

2  See  Godct,  Com.  in  loc.  Luke,  and  Art.  Genealogies  in  Smith's  Diet, 
of  the  Bible.  —  Tb. 


THE   HISTORICAL.  281 

as  to  liow,  in  their  opinion,  the  contradiction  is  to  be  solved. 
The  contradiction  in  the  subject-matter  is  not,  of  course,  thus 
removed.         4)  The  difference  concerning  the  day  of  Jesus's  Different 
death  has  already  been  mentioned.^     Even  after  the  thorough  the  day  of 
attempts  at  solution  by  Steitz  and  Riggeubach,  the  unprejudiced  death, 
interpreter,  who  takes  the  text  as  it  is,  cannot  be  persuaded 
that  the  fourth  Evangelist  also  makes  Jesus  to  keep  the  Pas- 
sover feast  with  his  disciples  and  to  die  on  the  Sabbath  of  the 
feast,  nor  of  the  fact  that  ^ayetv  to  Tracrxa  (John  xviii.  28)  may 
mean  anything  else  than  to  eat  the  Paschal  lamb ;  since  Deut. 
xvi.  2-8  (LXX)  proves  nothing  for  the  view  that  that  expression 
may  also  stand  for  the  eating  of  unleavened  bread.         5)  A 
greater  stone  of  offence  are  the  differences  and  contradictions  in 
the  history  of  the  resurrection.    We  discuss  here  only  the  more  History  of 
considerable  :       a)  According  to  Mark  (xvi.  8)  the  women  re-  rection. 
turning  from  the  sepulchre  by  reason  of  their  fear  said  noth- 
ing [ouSei/   ctTTov]  ;  but  according  to  Luke  (xxiv.  9-11)  they 
recounted  everything  to  the  eleven  disciples,  but  found  no  cre- 
dence;        y8)   The  risen  Jesus  appeared  according  to  1  Cor.  /   /  / 
XV.  5  (coll.  Luke  xxiv.  34)  first  of  all  to  Peter ;  but  according     >ri-^ S^hlUJ, 
to  John  (xx.  14ff.)  and,  according  to  the  appendix  in  Mark 
(xvi.  9),  first  of  all  to  Mary  Magdalene;         y)   in  general, 
between  the  time,  the  places,  and  the  persons  to  whom  the  risen 
Jesus  appeared,  there  is  no  agreement ;  especially  astonishing 
is  it,  that  of  the  five  hundred  brethren  to  whom  he  appeared, 
according  to  1  Cor.  xv.  6,  the  Evangelists  seem  to  know  nothing 
at  all ;  finally,        8)  in  one  and  the  same  Evangelist  there  is  a 
contradiction  in  reference  to  the  corporeality  of  the  risen  Jesus, 
cf.  Luke  xxiv.  31  with  39,  and  John  xx.  19  and  28  with  27  f. 
But  to  conclude  from  this  contradiction   that  Christ   did  not 
arise  is,  to  say  the  least,  hasty ;  and  to  infer  from  John  xx.  14 
and  Mark  xvi.  9  that  the  Apostles'  faith  in  the  resurrection  is 
to  be  referred  to  the  hallucination  of    the  nervously  excited 

1  Cf.  Godet,  Comm.  in  loc,  John  and  Luke;  Robinson  and  Gardiner, 
Greek  Harmonies,  in  loc;  Andrews,  Life  of  our  Lord;  Farrar,  Life  of 
Christ.  —  Tr. 

24* 


282         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 

Mary  Magdalene  [Rcnan]  is  a  frivolity  against  which  we 
cannot  express  ourselves  emphatically  enough.  But  it  is  a 
frivolity  of  another  kind,  in  the  service  of  a  dishonest  apolo- 
getics, to  deny  the  contradiction  or  to  reduce  it  to  an  unim- 
portant dimension.  An  unprejudiced  exegesis  and  criticism 
must  say :  However  it  may  be  with  the  appearance  of  the 
Risen  One,  two  facts  remain  firm  and  unassailable ;  the  one, 
that  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  early  in  the  morning,  women 
(whether  only  one,  or  two,  or  three)  came  to  the  grave,  and 
found  it  empty ;  the  other,  that  some  time  afterwards,  the  dis- 
ciples, previously  in  consternation,  became  full  of  courageous 
faith  that  Christ  has  risen.  What  lies  between  these  two 
points  we  shall  indeed  never  know  with  perfect  clearness.* 
6)  In  the  history  of  the  Apostle  Paul  there  is  a  contradiction 
in  the  fact  that,  according  to  Acts  ix.  26  f.,  Paul  travels,  soon 
after  his  conversion,  from  Damascus  to  Jerusalem,  and  goes  in 
and  out"  with  the  original  Apostles,  while  he  himself  asserts 
(Gal.  i.  17,  18)  that  he  journeyed  not  at  once  to  Jerusalem, 
but  first  to  Arabia,  and  not  until  three  years  afterwards  visited 
Peter  in  Jerusalem.^  The  interpreter  will  now,  perhaps, 
endeavor  so  to  interpret  the  account  in  the  Acts,  and  so  to 
extend  the  time  between  Damascus  and  Jerusalem  that  the 
contradiction  may  dwindle  as  much  as  possible ;  but  the  con- 
scientious exegete  will  allow  the  idleness  of  this  endeavor,  and 
will  be  obliged  to  acknowledge  the  inaccuracy  of  the  account 

Principles,  in  Acts.  In  general,  in  view  of  such  difficulties  and  contradic- 
tions, the  following  principles  cannot  be  sufficiently  impressed 

Modssty,  upon  the  exegete  and  critic :  1)  modesty,  in  that  in  many 
cases  no  absolutely  certain  results,  but  only  a  greater  or  less 
degree  of  probability,  is  attainable,  and,  after  all  attempts  at 
explanation,  a    Socratic    ignorance    is    very  becoming    to    the 

Veracity,      investigator ;    but,    especially,  2)    veracity,    to    which    not 

ingenious  contrivances,  but  simply  the  subject-matter    is   im- 

1  Cf.  on  all  the  passap;es  concerned  Meyer's  Commentaries,  on  those  in 
Lnlce  and  John,  Godet's  remarkably  clear  discussions.  —  Tii. 

2  Cf.  on  the  passai^e  in  Acts,  Ilackett  and  Meyer ;  on  the  passage  in 
Galatians,  LUjhtfoot,  Ellicott,  and  Meyer.  —  Tk. 


THE   HISTOKICAL.  283 

portant,  and  which  does  cot  wish  to  save  at  all  hazards  the 
traditional  and  "  orthodox  "  view,  and  does  not  do  violence  to 
the  text  and  to  history  ''  in  majorem  Dei  gloriam  "  since  here, 
as  elsewhere,  the  principle  is  to  he  rejected,  that  the  end 
sanctijies  the  means. 

80.  Passages  requiring  special  Investigation. 
If  the  general  knowledge  of  the  post-exilian  history,  and  of 
the  history  of  the  New  Testament  time  must  precede  all  ex- 
egetical  explanation,  so  very  many  passages  of  the  Gospels, 
Acts,  and  Epistles  require  special  investigations  and  explana- 
tions.        1)    A  knowledge  of   the   political   personages  and  Political 

,      T».T        fTi  •    personages, 

relations,  of  which  mention  is  made  m  the  JNew  iestament,  is 

necessary ;  as  of  Herod  the  Great,  who  meets  us,  indeed,  only  Herod  the 
in  the  preliminary  account  in  Matthew,  but  who  exercised  a 
great  influence   on   the   development  of   Jewish  affairs.     On 
Herod  the  Great,  Josephus,  and  especially  his  excellent  char- 
acterization (Ant.  XVI.  5,  4),  is  to  be  compared.     In  the  same 
preliminary  account  mention  also  is  made  of  Archelaus,  the  Archelaus. 
son  and  successor  of  Herod ;  and,  casual  as  this  mention  is,  yet 
confirmation  and  illustration  is  received  from  Josephus,  Ant 
XVII.  11,  4;  13,  2;    Belh  Jud.  II.  7,  3.     Herod  Antipas  is  ^erod^ 
immediately  embraced  in  the  gospel  history  (Luke  iii.  19;  ix. 
17  f. ;  xiii.  31 ;  Matt.  xiv.  1  ff. ;  Luke  xxiii.  6f.)  and  on  him 
also  is  Josephus  (Ant.  XVIII.  4,  5)  to  be  compared.     Josephus 
(I.e.  §  2)  is  of  special  interest  with  reference  to  the  imprison- 
ment of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  grounds  of  it.     But  the  most 
important  personage  ^  in  the  Gospel  history  is  Pontius  Pilate,  Pontius 
the    sixth   procurator   of   Judaea  (Luke  iii.  1  ;  xiii.  1 ;  Matt. 
xxvii. ;  Mark  xv. ;  Luke  xxiii. ;  John  xviii.  and  xix.),  on  whom 
also  Josephus  (Ant.  XVIIL  3, 1  ff. ;  4, 1 ;  Bell.  Jud.  11.  9,  2)  is 
to  be  compared.     For  unlike  estimates  of  this  man,  see,  among 
others,  Tholuck  on  the  one  side  and  Olshausen  on  the  other.    Of 
his  successors  ovi\^  Felix  (Acts  xxiii.  26  f. ;  xxiv.  22, 24-26)  and  Felix. 
Portius  Festus  (Acts  xxiv.  27 ;   xxv.  1  ff.)  are  mentioned,  cf.  Festus 
Joseph.  Ant.  XX.  8,  5,  et  al.     The  testimony  of  Tacitus  about 
1  Political  personage  is  of  course  meant.  —  Tb. 


284 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF   THE  INTERPRETER. 


Herod 
Agrippa  I. 


Publicans. 


Judas 
Galilaeus. 


Theudas. 


Eclipious 
relations. 
High-priest. 


Felix  is  important  (Hist.  Y.  9,  also  Annal.  XII.  54)  :  "...  per 
omnem  saevitiam  ac  libiclinem  jus  regium  servili  iiigeiiio  ex- 
ercuit."  On  Fortius  Festus  cf.  besides  Acts  xxiv.  27  ;  xxvi. 
31,  also  Josephus.  Ant.  XX.  8,  9,  11 ;  9,  1.  Of  Jewish  rulers, 
besides  Herod  Antipas,  are  mentioned  still,  Herod  Agrippa  I., 
on  whose  mortal  sickness  cf.  Acts  xii.  23,  with  Josej)hus,  Ant. 
XIX.  8,  2  —  and  Herod ^^r^p^a II.  (Acts  xxv.  13,  26  ;  Joseph. 
Ant.  XIX.  9,  2 ;  XX.  1,  1 ;  5,  2,  and  especially  7,  1  ;  Bell. 
Jud.  II.  12,  8).  Besides  these  principal  political  personages 
of  the  history  of  the  New  Testament  time,  others  still  occur, 
which  though  they  play  no  principal  role,  yet  help  to  charac- 
terize the  political  relations :  such  are  pre-eminently  the  pub- 
licans (reXoji/at),  who,  though  Jews,  are  ranked  as  a  despised 
class  with  the  a/xapTcoXots.  On  the  political  position  and  the 
functions  of  these  Roman  subordinate  officials,  cf.  Livy,  XXV. 
3;  XXXII.  7;  XLV.  18;  Tacitus,  Annal.  XIII.  50;  Dio 
Cassius  XLIL  6,  also  Lightfoot,  Horae  Hebraeicae,  p.  286, 
396.  Of  the  religio-political  fermentation,  that  broke  out  from 
time  to  time,  Judas  Galilaeus  (Acts  v.  37),  or  Gaulonites 
(Joseph.  Ant.  XYHI.  1,  1,  6;  2,  1 ;  Bell.  Jud.  II.  17,  7-19) 
gives  a  striking  proof.  Gamaliel,  indeed,  speaks  of  this  up- 
rising (Acts  V.  37)  as  long  since  and  promptly  suppressed  ;  but 
from  Josephus  (I.e.)  we  learn  that  Judas  the  Gaulonite  left 
behind  him  a  party  which  persisted  till  the  Jewish  war,  and 
played  an  imjoortant  part  in  the  breaking  out  of  this  war.  The 
VaktXaioL  also,  of  whom  Luke  makes  mention  (xiii.  1)  probably 
belonged  to  this  party.  On  the  other  hand,  the  mention  of 
Theudas  (Acts  v.  36)  is  difficult,  for  Josephus,  indeed,  also 
sjieaks  of  a  rebel  leader  Theudas  (Ant.  XX,  5, 1),  but  this  one 
was  active  far  later.  We  must,  therefore,  either  suppose  that 
there  were  two  of  this  name,  and  that  Josephus  has  failed  only 
through  accident  to  mention  the  earlier,  or  that  an  anachronism 
is  found  in  Acts  v.  36.  2)  Still  more  essential  is  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  religious  relations.  The  high-priest,  as  is  well 
kn6wn,  takes  the  first  place  in  the  hierarchical  organism,  and 
hence  the  knowledge  of  his  office,  of  his  functions,  etc.,  accord- 


THE   HISTORICAL.  285 

ing  to  the  Old  Testament  declarations  (Ex.  xxviii. ;  Lev.  xvi. ; 
Numb.  iii.  32  ;  xx.  28  ;  Deut.  x.  6)  is  to  be  presupposed.  But 
in  the  New  Testament  the  expression  apxiep^ts  in  the  plural 
frequently  occurs  (Matt.  xxi.  45  ;  xxvi.  3,  14  ;  xxvii.  1,  20,  62; 
xxviii.  11,  ah).  How  is  this  to  be  understood?  It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  in  the  Syrian,  Herodiau,  and  Roman  periods 
much  arbitrariness  concerning  the  choice  and  the  deposition  of 
the  high-priest  found  place  (cf.  Joseph.  XV.  3,  1 ;  XX.  10 ; 
1  Mace.  vii.  9 ;  Joseph.,  Bell.  Jud.  IV.  3,  6,  8),  so  that  instead 
of  the  one  that  was  invested  with  the  office,  there  were  several 
who  had  been  invested  with  the  office;  and  although  no  longer 
in  the  office,  yet  still  stood  in  authority.  The  Sanhedrin  Sanhedrin. 
(Talm.  -p-i^nic)  as  the  highest  theocratical  tribunal  is,  as  is 
natural,  frequently  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  by  no 
means  always  under  this  name  indeed,  but  as  ol  apxi-epets  koi 
ol  7rpea/3vT€poL,  or  ot  dpx-  (o  apx-),  oi  ypa/x/xaret?  /cat  ol  7rp€(r^u- 
Tcpoi  Tov  Xaov  (Matt.  xxvi.  3,  57  ;  Mark  xiv.  53  ;  xv.  1  ;  Luke 
xxii.  66).  By  Josephus  this  institution  is  mentioned  for  the 
first  time,  Ant.  XIV.  9,  3,  4.  On  the  constitution  and  the 
prerogatives  of  this  tribunal  the  Talmud  (tract.  Sanhedrin)  is 
especially  to  be  compared.  See  Selden,  De  Synedriis  et  Prae- 
fecturis  Vet.  Ilebr.  Relandi,  Antiq.  SacraelL  7.  Winer's  Bibl. 
Realworterbuch  s.  v.  Leyrer  in  Herzog's  R.  E.,  where  also 
the  literature  is  exhibited.  A  new  phenomenon,  furthermore, 
for  one  that  comes  immediately  from  the  Old  Testament  to 
the  New  is  the'  synagogue  worship  (cf.  Matt.  xiii.  54;  Mark  Synagogue 
vi.  2;  Luke  iv.  16,  in  Nazareth;  Mark  i.  21 ;  Luke  iv.  33; 
Matt.  xii.  9  ;  John  vi.  59.  But  according  to  Acts  ix.  2  in 
Damascus  also;  xiii.  14  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia;  xiv.  1  in  Ico- 
nium;  xvii.  1  in  Thessalonica ;  xvii.  10  in  Beroea;  xviii.  4  in 
Corinth ;  xviii.  19  in  Ephesus).  As  regards  the  origin  of  this 
institution  no  credit,  of  course,  is  to  be  given  to  the  Jewish 
tradition  which,  on  the  ground  of  Deut.  xxxi.  11  f.,  and  Ps. 
Ixxiv.  8,  refers  it  to  Moses.  Josephus  makes  mention  of  it 
first  Bell.  Jud.  VII.  3,  3 ;  but  from  this  we  need  not  decide 
upon  so  late  an  origin ;  the  probability  is  rather,  that  the  need 


286         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP  THE  INTERPRETER. 

of  such  worship  arose  in  the  Exile,  and  that  the  institution 
itself  was  formed  in  the  jieriod  succeeding  the  Exile,  on  the 
ground  of  the  standing  custom  of  reading  the  law  (Nch.  viii. 
1  f.)  and  on  account  of  the  8tao-7ropd  of  the  Jews.  On  the 
order  of  the  synagogue  worship  the  Talmud  (Jerusalem  Megill. 
75,  1)  and  Philo  (0pp.  II.  458,  476,  especially  G30  and  G31) 
inform  us.  The  summum  opus  on  the  synagogue  is  Camp. 
Vitringa^  De  Synag.  Veterum.  Franek.  1G96.  Cf.  further, 
TheScribea.  Winer  1.  c.  and  Leyrer  1.  c.  In  the  Gospels  we  meet  frequently 
also  the  so-called  scribes  (ypa/Ajaaret?,  vo/xoStSao-KaXoi,  vo/xtKot), 
yet  the  expression  *isb  occurs  already  frequently  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  the  matter  itself  Ezra  vii.  11,21.  After  the  Exile, 
as  is  well-known,  the  more  genial  and  popular  "wisdom" 
(r:r2n)  gave  place  more  and  more  to  legal  learning,  and  "  scribes" 
took  the  place  of  prophets  and  popular  orators.  On  the  subject 
and  the  manner  of  this  legal  learning  cf.  Josephus,  Ant.  XVII. 
6,  2  ;  XVIII.  3,  5.  The  aggregate  results  of  this  learning 
have  been  recorded  in  the  Talmud.  But  the  old  proverbial,  pop- 
ular and  apothegmatic  wisdom  also  still  maintained  its  place,  cf. 
the  Pirke  Aboth.^  The  contrast  is  remarkable  between  the 
picture  which  the  New  Testament  sketches  (Matt.  v.  20  ;  vi. 
1  ff. ;  XV.  1-14,  especially  vs.  23 ;  Luke  xi.  39-52)  and  the 
pictures  which  the  Jewish  writers  sketch  of  the  "  scribes," 
especially  of  the  most  distinguished  among  them,  Schammai 
and  riillel,  Simon  the  Just,  Juda  the  Holy,  and  others.  The 
contrast  is  explicable  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  judged  this  class 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  simple  and  original  word  of  God, 
or  from  the  stand-point  of  the  people  and  what  the  people 
need ;  the  Jewish  authors,  on  the  contrary,  judged  it  from  the 
stand-point  of  the  national  learning  and  dignity.  Cf.  Jf^iner  as 
above,  and  Leyrer,  s.  v.  in  Ilerzog. 
Importance  The  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  sects  is  also  important  for  the 
ed.ffeofthe  understanding  of   the  New  Testament.     Misled,   on    the  one 

Jewish 

sects.  1  ^Yn  En-lish  translation  of  the  Pirkc  Aboth  (Ethics  of  the  Fathers) 

top;eiher  with  an  unpointed  text  has  been  recently  published  in  En;:l;uid. 
There  is  also  a  German  translation,  with  pointed  text  by  Ewald,  It  n-ill 
be  found  very  instructive  from  a  rclit^io-hisiorical  poir.l  of  view.  —  Tu. 


THE  HISTORICAL.  •      287 

hand,  by  a  one-sided  consideration  of  many  passages  in  the  New  Pharisees. 
Testament ;  on  the  other  hand,  by  Josephus  (Ant.  XIII.  5,  9 ; 
XVIII.  1 ;  Bell.  Jud.  II.  8)  men  have  formed  an  incorrect 
idea  of  the  Pharisees,  as  if  they  had  been  all  either  conscious 
hypocrites,  hypocrites  by  profession,  or  as  if  they  had  been 
religious  philosophers,  because  they  are  compared  by  Josephus 
with  the  Stoics.  But  we  know  that  the  descriptions  of  the 
Jewish  historian  are  to  be  taken  cum  grano  salis,  inasmuch 
as  he  has  striven  to  make  the  Jewish  customs  and  opinions  as 
acceptable  as  possible  to  his  Greek-Roman  readers.  As  regards 
then  the  reproach  of  hypocrisy,  a  knowledge  of  the  rise  and 
development  of  this  sect  is,  before  everything  else,  necessary 
for  the  proper  characterization  thereof.  That  they  were  zealots 
for  the  ceremonial  law  is  clear  from  all  the  principal  passages 
of  the  New  Testament,  cf.,  besides,  Matt.  xv.  and  xxiii.,  also 
Acts  xxiii.  3  ;  xxvi.  5,  coll.  Gal.  i.  14.  But  this  fundamental 
feature  may  be  traced  back  to  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
(cf.  Ezra  ix.  f. ;  Neh.  viii.  f.).  This  tendency  received  a  new 
impulse,  in  opposition  to  the  Greek  innovations,  through  the 
Maccabaean  uprising,  which  was  nothing  else  than  the  heroic 
reaction  of  the  zealous  legalistic  national  spirit  against  the  pen- 
etrating heathen  character,  cf.  1  Mace,  ii.,  esp.  vs.  27.  Josephus 
mentions  the  Pharisees  for  the  first  time  Ant.  XIII.  5,  9 
(about  B.C.  145),  but  it  is  not  to  be  concluded  from  this  that 
they  at  that  time  first  made  their  appearance.  Pharisaism  is 
nothino-  else  than  the  consequence  of  the  post-exilian,  legalistic 
Judaism ;  and  from  this  fact  is  to  be  explained,  to  be  sure,  as 
well  the  interpretation  of  the  law  and  tradition  losing  itself  in 
casuistic  minutiae,  as  the  ascetic  piety  degenerating  more  and 
more  into  externality:  hence  the  not  unfounded  reproach  of 
hypocrisy  which  they  have  incurred.  Cf.  SchneJcenhurger, 
Beitriige,  p.  69  ff.,  Winer,  R.  W.  B.,  s.v.  and  Leyrer,  in  Herzog, 
s.v.  The  counterpart  of  the  Pharisees  formed  the  Saddiicees,  sadducees. 
who  are  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  deniers  of  the 
existence  of  the  spiritual  world  and  of  the  resurrection  (Matt. 
xxii.  23;  Mark  xii.  18;  Luke  xx.  27;  Acts  xxiii.  8).     But 


288         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

the  fundamental  difference  between  them  and  the  Pharisees 
consisted  less  in  this  than  in  their  rejection  of  oral  tradition. 
From  the  fact  that  they  held  themselves  strictly  to  Scrip- 
ture, and  deemed  of  no  account  the  development  of  doctrine 
through  the  post-exilian .  theology  (Joseph.  Ant.  XIII.  10,  G) 
is  to  be  explained  as  well  their  rejection  of  the  resurrection 
and  of  immortality,  nowhere  clearly  taught  in  the  older  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  (cf.  also,  Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.  II.  8,  14), 
as  of  the  post-exilian  development  of  the  doctrine  of  angels 

Essenea.  and  demons.  The  Essenes  are  nowhere  mentioned  by  name 
in  the  New  Testament,  but  inasmuch  as  Col.  ii.  really  refers 
to  Essenean  customs  and  opinions,  and,  inasmuch  as  the  Epistle 
of  James  is  an  Ebionitic  product,  and  the  Ebionites  proceeded 
from  Essenism  (cf.  Credner^  Ueber  Essaer  und  Ebioniten  und 
einen  theilweisen  Zusammenhang  derselben,  and  Baur,  De 
Ebionitarum  origine  et  doctrina,  ab  Essenis  repetenda),  a 
knowledge  of  the  Essenes  is  necessary  to  the  interpreter  of 
the  parts  of  the  New  Testament  named.  The  sources  are 
Joseph.  Ant.  XIII.  5,  9 ;  XVIII.  1,  2^6,  esp.  Bell.  Jud.  II. 
8,  2-13.  Philo  on  the  Therapeutae  in  his  writing  "  Quod 
omnis  probus  liber."  Coll.  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  V.  1 7.  Cf.  also, 
besides    Credner   and   Baur,    Uhlhorn    s.v.   in    Herzog.     The 

Samaritans,  mention  of  the  Samaritans  in  the  New  Testament  necessitates 
also  a  knowledge  of  the  history  of  this  mixed  people,  and  of 
the  relation  of  the  Jews  thereto.  On  this  point  are  to  be 
compared  Ezra  iv. ;  Joseph.  Ant.  XI.  1,2;  4,  3  f.,  9  ;  XII.  5, 
5  ;  XIII.  9,  1  ;  10,  2  ;  XIV.  5,  3  ;  Ewald,  History  of  Israel; 
Winer,  R.  W.  s.v.,  and  the  elaborate  article  by  Petermann  in 

Countries     Herzog.     The  explanation  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  of 

of  Asfa^  ^^  the  Pauline  Epistles  requires  also  a  knowledge  of  the  countries 
^^^'  andpeoplesof  AsiaMinor,  especaillyof  Galatia(cf.  Strabo  XII. 
566  f.;  Livy,  XXXVII.  8,  and  XXXVIII.  12,  18;  Justin. 
XXV.  2;  Dio  Cass.  53,  p.  514;  Joseph.  Ant.  XVI.  6),  of 
Ephesus  (cf.  Strabo  XIV.  632,  640  f.,  al.  Winer's  R.W.  s.v.), 
of  Greece  in  general  in  the  last  centuries  before  the  rise  of 
Christianity,    especially    of    Corinth    since   its   overthrow   by 


THE  HISTORICAL.  289 

Mummius  (b.c.  146,  cf.  Livy,  Epit.  52  ;  Strabo,  YIII.  378  ff., 
Pausan.  II.  1  ff.)-^  From  the  examples  adduced  it  is  clear, 
liow  from  the  comparison  of  the  extra-biblical  accounts  with 
the  New  Testament  accounts  a  new  light  is  spread  over  the 
latter,  and  how  important  the  more  comprehensive  and 
thorough  knowledge  of  these  things  is  for  the  New  Testament 
interpreter. 

81.   Importance  of  Knowledge  of  Jewish  Customs. 
Furthermore,  the  knowledge  of  Jewish  customs  is  of   im- 
portance and  interest.         a)  Of  specifically  religious  customs  Kdigious 
and  usages  the  feasts,  especially  the  Passover  (Matt.  xxvi.  17  ff. ; 
Mark  xiv.  12  £f. ;  Luke  xxii.  1  £e. ;  John.  ii.  13  ;  xiii.  1  li.),  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  2f.),  and  the  Feast  of  Pen- 
tecost (Acts  ii.  If.)  are  the  most   important.     On  these  the 
Old  Testament  is  the   most  valuable   source  of  information; 
on  the  Passover  (Ileb.  HDS .  Aram,  tincsi),  or  the  feast  of  un-  Passover, 
leavened  bread  (r;  koprrj  raJv  al,vixuiv  rr^izT}  5n),  Ex.  xii.  1-28; 
Lev.  xxiii.  4-14 ;  Numb,  xxiii.  IG  if. ;  Deut.  xvi.  1-8),  further- 
more, Joseph.  (Ant.  XVIL  9,  3  ;   Bell.  Jud.  VI.  9,  3)  and  the  ' 
Talmud  (Tract.  Pesachin.  ch.  5)  are  to  be  compared.     On  the  Fej|t  of^^^ 
feast  of    Tabernacles   {aK-qvGirqyia,  r.'issr  ^n)   cf.  Lev.    xxni. 
33  £E. ;  Num.  xxix.  12  if. ;  Deut.  xvi.  IG  If. ;  Joseph.  III.. 10,  4 ; 
XIII.  8,  2  ;    13,  8.     On   the  feast  of  Pentecost    {7r^vr7]K0(TTrj 
-^-,:i^n  in  or  r'lrnTi"  sn)  cf.  Ex.  xxiii.  16  f . ;  Lev.  xxiii.  15  f.; 
Numb,  xxvii).  27  ff. ;  Deut.  xvi.  9  ff. ;.  Joseph.  Ant.  III.  10,  6  ; 
XIY.  3,  4  ;  XVII.  12,  2  ;  Bell.  Jud.  II.  3, 1.    In  the  Epistle  to 
thb  Hebrews  (ix.  7)  allusion  is  also  made  to  the  Great  Day  of  Grea^^Day 
Atonement,  on  which  cf.  Lev.  xvi.  23,  26  ff. ;  Num.  xxix.  27  ff.,  ment. 
coU.  Joseph.  Ant.  IIL  10,  3;   XIV.  6, '4,  and   the    Talmud 
(Tract.  Joma,  in  Mischna  II.  5).     But  most  important  of  all  • 
for  the  explanation  of  the  Gospels,  especially  on  account  of 
the  frequent  conflicts  of  Jesus  with  the  hierarchs  (Matt.  xii. 
1-8  ;  Luke  vi.  6-11  ;  xiii.  10-17  ;  xiv.  1-6  ;  John  v.  10  ff. ;  vii. 

1  On  the  places  mentioned  in  the  text,  cf.  Conyheare  and  Iloicson,  Life 
and  Epp.  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  various  articles  in  Smith's  Dict.-of  the  Bible 
(Am.ed.).  — Tr. 

25 


290  SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

Sabbath.  22,23;  ix.  16)  is  the  ordinance  of  the  weekly  Sahhath,  on 
which,  besides  the  Old  Testament  principal  passages  (Ex.  xx. 
8-11  ;  xxxi.  12-17  ;  xxxv.  1-3  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  3  ;  Num.  xxviii.  9  ; 
Deut.  V.  12-15;  Jer.  xvii.  19  jff. ;  Neh.  xiii.  15-22)  Joseph. 
Cont.  Ap.  II.  39,  and  the  Talmud,  especially  Mischua,  Schabbath 

Purificatory  22  and  24,  are  to  be  coraj^ared.  As  in  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  so  in  their  rites  of  'purification^  the  Pharisees  were 
very  micrological  and  casuistical,  a  circumstance  which  likewise 
gives  occasion  for  conflicts  (cf.  IMark  vii.  3  ff. ;  Matt.  xv.  2  if. ; 
xxiii.  25  f. ;  Luke  xi.  39  f.)  On  this  point,  likewise,  the 
Kabbins  are  to  be  compared,  see  Lightfoot,  Ilor.  Hebr.  p. 
3G6ff.,  in  which,  however,  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the 
rites  of .  purification  of  the  Egyptians  (cf.  Herod.  II.  37),  of 
the  Persians  (cf.  Vendidad,  3d-^th  Fargard),  and  of  the 
Indians  (the  Laws  of  Manu)  were  just  as  rigorous  and  minute 
as  those  of  the  Jews,  yea,  even  more  minute.  That  Jewish 
piety,  as  for  the  rest,  consisted  chiefly  of  the  three  parts, 
alms-giving,  praying,  and  fasting,  is  evident  from  Matt.  vi.  1-18. 

Aims-?iv-     On  alms-giving  cf.  Prov.  xxii.  9 ;  xxviii.  27 ;  then  Sirach  vii. 

ino^,  fasting,  ^ 

and  prayer.  32  f.,  pre-eminently  Tob.  xii.  9  ;  xiv.  11  ;  Acts  x.  2,  31.  There 
is  no  ordinance  of  -prayer  in  the  Pentateuch,  yet,  as  in  all 
religions,  the  custom  is  to  be  understood  of  itself.  But  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  the  polemics  of  Jesus  is  directed  against 
the  opus  operatum  of  praying,  and  against  the  ostentation 
practised  in  connection  therewith.  The  opus  operatum  seems 
to  have  crept  in  very  soon  after  the  Exile ;  at  least  it  appears, 
e.g.  in  Dan.  vi.  11  ;  Tob.  xii.  9 ;  Judith  iv.  12,  as  an  essential 
part  of  piety,  rfind  was  performed  not  onl}'-  on  all  important 
occasions,  but  also  at  stated  times  ;  in-which,  moreover,  other 
peoples  also  agree  with  the  Jews,  e.g.  the  Egyptians  (cf. 
Porphyr.  De.  Abst.  4,  8).  But  the  most  culpable  thing  was 
the  ostentation  practised  in  connection  with  prayer  (Matt.  vi. 
5),  on  which  the  Rabbins  in  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Hebr.  p.  292 ; 
Wetst.  I.  321,  are  to  be  compared,  and  the  notion  that  long 
prayers  are  pleasing  to  God  and  eflScacious  (Matt.  vi.  7)  coll. 
Jerusalem  Talmud,  Taanith.  f.  67,  3  ;  Babylonian  Talm.  Berach. 


THE  HISTORICAL.  291 

32,  2;  54,  2),  which  is  reproached  by  Jesus  as  heathenish. 
For  examples  t)f  heathen  litanies  see  in  Lightf.  p.  295,  coll. 
Etym.  M.  and  Suid.  ad  v.  Boltto^,  /3aTro\oyuv,  Neither  with 
regard  io  fasting  does  Jesus  condemn  it  per  se,  but  likewise,  only 
the  ostentation  (Matt.  vi.  IG),  and  the  thoughtless  opus  opera- 
tum  in  connection  with  fasting  (cf.  Matt.  ix.  15  f.).  That  this 
general  Oriental  custom,  very  commendable  and  well-founded 
in  its  principle,  had  likewise  come,  little  by  little,  to  be  regarded 
as  an  opus  operatum  and  a  meritorious  work,  with  which  also 
parade  was  sometimes  practised  among  the  Pharisees,  is  in 
part  self-evident  and  in  part  is  proved  by  witnesses  outside  of 
the  New  Testament,  cf.  e.g.  1  Mace.  iii.  47  ;  Talmud  Tr.  Joma 
8,  1  ;  Babyl.  Taanith  12,  2;  13,  2.     Cf.  Winer's  R.  W.  and 

HerzoCT's  R.  E.  s.  v.  b)    Of    civil  customs  and  usages  v/e  Civil 

o  ^  •  rni  customs, 

adduce  only  the  divorce  and  funereal  mournmg.  i  lie  expres- 
sions of  Jesus,  Matt.  v.  ol  and  xix.  o  £E.,  are  directed  against 
a  reprehensible  laxity  in  the  matter  of  divorce.  What  vrere  Divorce. 
the  Jewish  ordinances  and  usages  in  this  relation  ?  Accord- 
ing to  Deut.  xxii.  13-19  and  28,  29  a  man  could  not  separate 
himself  from  his  wife  either  if  he  had  unjustly  given  her  a 
bad  reputation,  or  had  cohabited  with  her  as  a  maiden.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  may  separate  himself  from  her,  if  he  find  any- 
thing disgraceful  ("^"n  r:"ir,  LXX  ao-xnfJ-ov  -rrpayixa)  in  her; 
only  he  is  to  furnish  her  with  a  letter  of  divorcement  (iSD 
rn^^2,  LXX  jSijSXtov  arroaTamov,  Deut.  xxiv.  1-4).  On  the 
idea  of  the  ^'z'^>  r^ir  now,  at  the  time  of  Jesus,  the. schools  of 
Hillel  and  of  Shammai  were  in  controversy,  the  former  ex- 
tending this  expression  to  everything  displeasing  to  the  man,^ 
but  the  latter  limiting  it  to  what  is  disgraceful  and  unseemly 
(not  just  to  adultery  merely).  On  this  matter  the  Talmud  is 
very  prolix  and  sets  forth  a  host  of  micrological  distinctions 
(Tr.  Ghittin  and  Seder  Nashim,  cf.  Lightf oot,  p.  273  f.).  To 
the  lax  interpretation  and  custom  the  question  of  the  Phar- 

1  A  man  might  divorce  his  wife  if  she  burned  his  food,  in  preparing  it. 
Cf.  Delitzsch's  polemical  tract,  Jesus  und  Hillel,  written  against  Geiger 
and  Renan.  —  Tr. 


292         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE  INTERPRETER. 

isees  (Matt.  xix.  3),  whether  it  is  allowable  to  put  away  one's 
wife  Kara  Trao-av  alriav,  relates  ;  but  Jesus  "not  only  sets  forth 
'  the  more  rigorous  principle  of  Shammai,  but  he  even  goes 
back  of  the  Mosaic,  to  the  original  idea  of  the  connection 
between  man  and  woman  (Gen.  ii.  24).  In  Matt.  ix.  23; 
Mark  v.  38  ;  John  xi.  19,  31  allusion  is  made  to  the  Jewish 
^louming.  custom  of  funereal  mourning,  yet  without  furnishing  us  with 
data  for  a  clear  picture  of  the  custom.  Illustrations  from 
Jewish  authors  would  be,  therefore,  very  welcome.  There  are 
such  illustrations  also  with  regard  to  the  postures  of  the 
mourners  and  the  duration  of  mourning.  Matt.  I.e.  in  par- 
ticular is  elucidated  by  Jer.  ix.  16  (mourning  women  niisip^) 
coll.  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25,  and  especially  by  passages  in  the 
Talmud  (Chetuboth  ch.  4  ;  halac.  6  ;  Bava  Mezia  ch.  6  ;  halac. 
1  in  Lightf.  ad  loc).  That,  moreover,  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romano  similar  customs  also  prevailed  the  passages  cited  in 
Wetstein  prove  (I.  3G2).  John  xi.  19,  31  refers  to  a  burden- 
some custom  which  is  confirmed  and  elucidated  by  passages 
from  the  Talmud,  cf.  Lightf.  p.  1070.  Thus  we  see  that  many 
passages  which  either  might  remain  unobserved,  or  which  from 
prepossession  we  should  be  inclined  to  regard  as  unhistorical, 
find  their  explanation  through  acquaintance  with  the  Jewish 
customs. 

82.   Knowledge  of  Jewish  Doctrines  and  Opinions. 

Almost  more  essential  still  to  the  understanding  of  the  New 
Testament  is  the  knowledge  of  Jewish  doctrines  and  opinions 
at  the  time  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles.  So  far  as  they  rest 
upon  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  these  customs  and  o[)inions 
receive  their  explanation  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  hence 
the  knowledije  of  the  Old  Testament  relijiious  ideas  is  an 
indispensable  foundation  for  the  exegesis  of  the  New  Testa- 
Mostimpor-  ment.  The  most  important  helps  for  acquiring  this  knowledge 
tant  helps.  ^^^^ .  DeWefte,  Bil,lische  Dogmatik  des  A.  und  N.  T.,  3  Aull. 
1831..  L.  F.  0.  Baumgarten-Crusiiis,  Grundzuge  der  bib- 
lischcn  Tlieologie,  1828.  D.  Von  Colin,  Biblische  Theologie, 
Bd.  I.  ed.  D.  Schulz,  1836.     Ewald^   History  of   Israel,   es- 


THE   HISTORICAL.  293 

pecially  the  Antiquities  of  the  Israelites.  aS'.  Lutz^  Biblische 
Dcgmatik,  ed.  Ruetschi,  1847.  Steudel,  Vorlesungen  iiber  die 
Theologie  des  A.T.,  ed.  Oehler,  1840.  Ilavernick,  Vorlesungen 
iiber  die  Theologie  des  Alt.  Test.,  ed.  Hahn,  1848.  Oehler,  Artt. 
Jehova,  Messias,  Prophetenthum,  Weissagung,  Unsterblichkeit, 
in  Herzog's  R.  E.  —  especially  H.  Schulz,  Alttestamentliche 
Theologie,  2  vols.  1869.  On  Old  Testament  prophecy  we  are 
to  compare  especially :  Hitzig,  Der  Prophet  Jesaja,  introduc- 
tion (1833).  Knobel,  Der  Prophetismus  der  Hebraer,  1837. 
Jidster,  Die  Propheten  des  A.  und  N.  T.,  1838.  Hengstenbergf 
Christology  of  the  O.  T.  K.  A.  Auherlen,  The  Prophet  Daniel 
and  the  Revelation  of  John,  Hofmann,  "Weissagung  und 
Erfullung,  1841  and  1844.  Ewald,  Die  Propheten  des  A. 
Bundes,  (Introd.).  Bertheau,  Die  Alttestamentliche  Weis- 
sagung  von  Israels  Reichsherrlichkeit,  in  the  Jahrbiiehern 
fiir  deutsche  Theologie,  1859.  Per  contra,  Oehler  in  the  Art. 
Weissao;unoj  in  Herzosr.  Bleeh,  Introduction  to  the  O.  T. 
Bunsen^  God  in  History,  part  I.  [  Tholuch,  Die  Propheten 
und  ihre  Weissagungen  ;  B.  Payne  Smith,  Prophecy  a  Prep- 
aration for  Christ].  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  con-  Change  of 
ceptions,  as  well  as  the  national  relations,  of  the  Jewish  people  ceptions, 
changed.  The  contact  with  the  Chaldeans,  hostile  indeed,  but 
still  cognate,  with  Parsaism  (whose  influence  has,  to  be  sure, 
been  overestimated) ;  then  the  ever  more  antagonistic  ex- 
clusiveness  with  regard  to  everything  heathen,  which,  however, 
could  not  always  be  entirely  shunned;  the  dividing  up  of 
Judaism  into  exclusive  Palestinians  and  Hellenists,  into  those 
that  believed  in  tradition  and  ascetics,  into  deists  and  mystics ; 
furthermore,  the  learning  and  its  schools,  and  finally,  the 
pressing  in  of  Greek,  especially  of  Platonic  ideas  —  all  this 
must  affect  essentially  the  religious  consciousness  of  the 
Jewish  people.  "We  must  know  how  to  transpose  ourselves 
into  this  world  of  later,  but  to  us  so  entirely  foreign  views,  in 
order  to  understand  the  New  Testament  in  this  aspect  also. 
The  sources  of  information  are,  1)  the  post-exilian  books 
of   the   Old   Testament    Canon,  2)    the  Apocrypha   and 

25* 


294  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

Pseudepigraphs,  3)  tke  writings  of  Philo,  and         4),  with 

restriction,  the  Talmud  and  the  Rabbins.     For  exegetes  of  the 

New   Testament  the  knowledge  of  the  foUowincr  ideas   and 

Fully derei- conceptions    is   of     especial     importance:  a)    the   more 

oped  ani^el-  ,  ,  .  ,.,.., 

oiogyinthe  thoroughly  wrought  out  doctrine  of  angels,  which  is  evident 
from   many  New    Testament   passages,    e.g.  Luke  i.  19,  26; 

♦  Jude  9  ,'  Rev.  vii.  f.,  coll.  Dan.  xii.  1  ;  Tob.  v.  4,  as  also  the 

developed  belief  in  Satan  and  in  demons  ;  for  as  the  Jewish 
theology  of  that  time  taught  a  whole  hierarchia  coelestis  of 
angels  under  their  chief,  the  archangel  Michael  (Dan.  I.e. ;  Rev. 
xii.  7),  who,  at  the  same  time,  is  the  guardian  angel  of  Israel ; 
so  there  was  also  according  to  this  theology  a  hierarchia  infer- 
nalis,  under  BecX^cjSovA,  the  ap^^oiv  roiv  SaifxovLiov,  cf.  Matt,  xii.  24 
on  which  Lightf.  and  TVetstein  may  be  compared.  On  the  one 
hand,  we  find  Satan  or  the  Adversary,  no  longer,  as  in  the  Book 
of  Job,  as  a  member  of  the  council  of  God,  but,  in  an  almost 
dualistic  way,  over  against  God ;  on  the  other  hand,  there  are 
the  gods  of  the  heathen  that  are  thousrht  of  as  existinsj  but  as 
evil  spirits,  as  the  name  Beelzebul  (Beelzebub)  indicates,  and 
1  Cor.  viii.  5  coll.  x.  19-21  shows  more  clearly,  coll.  Deut.  xxxii. 

Doctrineof  ]7  (LXX);  Ps.  xcv.  (Heb.  xcvi.)  5;  Baruch  iv.  7.  yS)  The 
Alexandrine  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  to  which  the  prologue  of 
John  immediately,  Heb.  i.  1—3  and  other  passages  mediately, 
refer.  On  this  cf.  Gfrorer^s  Philo,  L  1 G8  fp.,  also  Luches  Com- 
mentary on  John,  Introduction.^  y)  But  most  important  of  all 
for  the  understanding  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  insight  into 

Messianic     the  Jewish  Messianic  expectations,  and  their  relation  to  Jesus's 

expocta-        ^  ,  -* 

tions.  idea  of  the  Messiah.     In  the  first   instance  they  were  based 

upon  the  Old  Testament  prophecies,  cf.  Matt.  i.  23  with  Isa. 
vii.  14 ;  Matt.  ii.  2  with  Num.  xxiv.  17  ;  Matt.  ii.  5,  6  with  Mic. 
V.  1  ;  Matt.  ii.  15  with  Hos.  xi.  1,  etc.  If  in  the  earlier  time 
the  Messianic  expectation,  as  far  as  it  was  general,  was  based 
on  such  passages  as  Joel  iii.;  Jer.  xxxi.  31-34;  Isa.  xxxv.  5  fl.; 
xl.  1  ff. ;  Ix. ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-27,  etc.;  and,  as  far  as  it  was 
personal,  tliiefly  upon  Mic.  v.;  Isa.  ix.  1-6;  xi.  1-10;  Jer. 
J  Cf.  also  Godet,  Meyer,  jSfeander,  and  Tholuck,  Coram,  in  loc.  John.— Tr. 


THE   HISTORICAL.  295 

xxiii.  5-8 ;  Zech.  ix.  9 ;  since  the  oppression  under  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  and  under  the  influence  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  a 
change  had  taken  place  in  this  expectation  ;  that  is  to  say,  that 
tlie  Messiah  is  to  be  a  shoot  of  David  (n^:?  Jer.  xxiii.  5  ;  Zech. 
iii.  8  ;  vi.  12),  and  is  to  go  forth  from  Bethlehem  (Matt.  ii.  5,  6; 
John  vii.  42).  But,  first  of  all,  it  was  expected  that  the 
advent  of  the  Messiah  would  he  preceded  by  a  time  of  great 
'calamity  (rr^  rs  or  H'^prn  ^l?^n),  cf.  Dan.  xii.  1  ;  4  Ezra  ii. 
27 ;  xvi.  12.  "  According  to  Mai.  iii.  1  ff.  a  forerunner  of  the 
Messiah  was  expected,  and,  indeed,  in  the  person  of  Elias,  but 
in  part  also  in  the  person  of  Jeremiah  (cf.  2  Mace.  ii.  1 ;  4  Ezra 
ii.  18  coll.  Matt.  xvi.  14),  or  of  Isaiah  (cf.  4  Ezra  ii.  18).  On  the  ^J>^^<1^^_ 
appearance  of  the  Messiah  himself  two  ideas  were  current :  FjJ^^^'^^^.  «J 
the  old  Davidic  and  the  supernaturalistic  or  apocalyptic,  based 
on  Dan.  vii.  13,  14,  cf.  Matt.  xvi.  24  ;  xxiv.  30,  31 ;  xxvi.  64; 
4  Ezra  xiii.  32.  The  Messianic  salvation  was  to  consist  in  the 
deliverance  of  the-  Israelites  from  their  enemies  (coll.  Luke  i. 
67-71  ;  Acts  i.  6 ;  4  Ezra  xii.  34),  in  the- restoration  of  the 
worship  and  customs,  in  the  bowing  down  to  the  God  of  Israel 
by  all  nations  (Mic.  iv.  1-4;  Isa.  Ix. ;  Zech.  viii.  23-23),  and 
in  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  the  people  (Jer.  xxxi.  34  ;  Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25 ;  Isa.  xliv.  3,  coll.  Matt.  i.  21 ;  Luke  i.  74,  75). 
With  this  was  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  connected  (4  Ezra 
ii.  10-16,  30,  31)  ;  at  the  blast  of  the  judgment  trumpet  they 
shall  come  forth  from  the  graves  (4  Ezra  vi.  24,  25  coll.  1  Cor. 
XV.  51,  52  ;  1  Thess,  iv.  16).  The  righteous  shall  be  clothed 
in  shining  robes  and  shall  partake  of  the  feast  of  the  Lord 
(4  Ezra  ii.  37-41 ;  Dan.  xii.  3,  coU.  3Iatt.  xiii.  43  ;  viii.  11 ; 
Rev.  xix.  9).  But  this  kingdom  shall  last  only  a  thousand 
years,  then  Satan  shall  be  loosed  again  ;•  a  war  shall  be  waged 
against  the  Messiah  by  the  land  of  JMagog  (Targ.  Jonath.  ad 
Num.  xi.  26  coll.  Rev.  xx.  7-10),  but  the  Messiah  shall  con- 
quer. Hereupon,  amid  the  sounding  of  trumpets,  follow  the 
second  resurrection  and  the  judgment  (Sepher  Ikarim,  ch.  31 
fol.  147  ;  Beresch.  Rabba  ad  Gen.  xlix.  10 ;  4  Ezra  xiii.  26). 
All    of   these   ideas  were   not,  however,  diffused   among   the 


296         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

All  these  people ;  many  of  them  may  well  have  been  merely  the  prop- 
popiUar.  erty  of  the  learned.  It  is  a  matter  of  dispute  whether  there 
was  in  the  Jewish  peojDle  the  belief  that  the  Messiah  must 
suffer  and  die.  According  to  Isa-  liii.  and  Ps.  xxii.  there 
appears  to  be  no  room  for  doubt ;  but,  first  of  all,  the  explana- 
tion of  these  passages  is  itself  disputed  ;  then  the  consternation 
of  the  disciples  at  their  Master's  death  would  be  inexplicable, 
if  the  belief  that  the  Messiah  must  suffer  and  die  had  been  the 
popular  belief.  Cf.  also  Matt.  xvi.  22  ;  Mark  ix.  32,  and  other 
passages. 

83.    Connection  of  the  foregoing  with  Exegesis. 

These  and  other  investigations  that  relate  to  the  real  ex- 
planation, appear  to  lie  far  from  the  main  object  of  exegesis  — 
the  ascertaining   and  the   reproduction  of   the  sense  and  the 
spirit  of  the  author.     But  only  a  simple  consideration  is  neces- 
sary to  correct  this  appearance,  and  to  estimate  the  necessity 
of   this  knowledge  and    its  connection  with    the  spirit  of  the 
author.     Every  individual,  and  hence  every  writer,  however 
original  and  enlightened  he  may  be,  belongs  at  the  same  time 
Relation  of  to  his  age  and  nationality.     These  two  factors  form,  as  it  were, 
totheage.    the  maternal  ground,  from  which  he  has  grown,  and  which  he 
can  never  entirely  outgrow.     Even  the  language  in  which  he 
writes  is  the  product  of  this  soil ;  not  less  the  ideas  and  con- 
ceptions in  which  consciously  or  unconsciously  he  moves,  the 
customs  and  relations  in  which  and  out  of  which  he  has  grown 
The  inter-    up.     The  task  of  the  interjDreter,  now,  is  to  seize  upon  these 

preter's  ,      .  ,      .  .        ,     .  .  •  7      7 

task.  relations,  customs,  and  views  in  their  connection  with  the  sense 

and  spirit  of  the  author.  Only  when  we  can  transpose  ourselves 
'into  the  relations  and  moods  of  him  whom  we  wish  to  under- 
stand, is  a  true  understanding  possible.  At  the  same  time  the 
other  task  —  to  ascertain  and  understand  his  personal  peculiari- 
ties, which  indeed  never  entirely  rise  above  or  sink  below  the 
relations  temporal  and  local,  and  especially  to  ascertain  and 
to  understand  the  way  and  manner  of  his  intercourse  with 
God  —  is  not  excluded.  The  task  of  the  exegete  in  this  respect 
is  now,  in  brief,  the  following:  1)  the  general  knowledge 


THE  HISTORICAL.  297 


Of  'real'  matters,  as   was   remarked   above  (§  72),  is  to  be  Ee>a.,j.e 
acauired  freely  and  independently  of  all  special  exp  anation,  .1^^;  .«>.^_ 
but*  the  exegesis  itself  has  never  to  take  the  'real'  explanation 
or  presuppositions   that   belong  to  this,  as  its   startmg-pomt. 
The  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  e.g., 
has  suffered  much  from  the  circumstance  that  men  have  some-  _ 
times  taken  as  their  starting-point  certain  realistic  l,ypotheses. 
All  explanation  has  rather   to  take  as  its   starting-pomt  the 
grammatical  and  logical  sense,  and  only /™m  tins  to  seek  the 
'real'  understanding  of   the   author,  or   of   the   given   pas-   _ 
.a<re  .2)  If  the  sense  of  a  passage  is  clear  m  itself,  we  ^e.dl«shr■ 

ninst  beware  of  trying  to  touch  it  up  by  means  of  physieaUe  avoided, 
or  archaeological  hypotheses,  as  e.g.  with  the  supposition  of  a 
nocturnal  storm   just  risiT^g   in  John  iii.  8,  which,  indeed   is 
sufficiently  clear  from  the  Hellenistic  double  meaning  of  the 
word  .v.vixa;  or  through  the  supposition  of  a  herd  of  sheep 
iust  passing  by  in  the  allegory  of  the  Good  Shepherd;  or  m 
the  allc.'ory  of  the  Vine,  tlirough  the  superfluous  supposition 
that  Jesus  with  the  disciples  on  the  way  to  Gethsemane  had 
just  come  past  a  vineyard,  or  that  the  wine  reminded  him  of  it 
Such  unnecessary  employment  of   realistic  hypotheses  is  not 
only  insipid,  but  also  bears  witness  to  the  incapacity  of  the 
exe-ete  to  transpose  himself  into  the  world  of  conceptions  and 
thoi^hts  of  the  speaker  or  writer.         3)  On  the  other  hand,  c»,«  .n^^^ 
unnrnibered  passages  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  receive.  .Mi.rowa 
,h,ou.d,  the  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Holy  Land  and  acuitgas- 
people  and  its  history  an  excellent,  and  not  seldom  an  unex- -real ;^^^^ 
peeted,  light.      Thus,   many   a  passage,  which    to  Occidental 
soberness  and  to  Js-orthern  book-men  either  escaped  observation 
or  seemed  well-nigh  senseless,  has  become  clear  and  lifelike 
di.ou.Tli  the  knowledge  of  the  Holy  Land  and  the  character 
and  customs  of  its  inhabitants,  as  these  have  been  made  known 
to  ns  throud.  the  noble   k>bors  of   learned  and   aiyreciative 
Palestinian  travellers.     So  also,  tlirough  the  knowledge  of  the       _ 
historical  and  the  archaeological  is  an  nnderstanding  rendered 
possible,  through  which  the  grammatical  and  the  logical  6rst 


298  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

Connection  receive  tone  and  colorinjr.         4)   But  no  '  real '  knowlediie  is 

between  the         .  ...  .      .         \ 

'reai'reia-  fruitful  for  exegesis  until  the  interpreter  has  an  insight  into 

the  spirit  of  the  connection  between  the  '  real '  relations  and  the  spirit  of 

the  author.  ,  *      n-i,        -i- •     •  r.     •    •      t        it  •  ^         1  M  T       1 

an  author,  ihe  JUivnie  Spirit  dwelling  m  the  biblical  writer 
is  always  influenced  by  the  national  and  temporal  relations 
and  dispositions,  and  the  writer's  individuality,  nationality,  and 
temporal  direction  is  transfigured  by  the  Divine  Spirit  dwelling 
in  him.  On  the  insight  into  this  mutual  relation  depends  the 
right  application  of  the  '  real '  knowledge  to  the  exj^lanation 
of  the  author. 

c)    The  Influence  of  the  Ideal  on  the  Historical. 

a)  Influence  of  the  Religious  Poptdar  Spirit  on  the  Historical 
Representation, 

84.   Character  of  Oriental  Historiography. 

He  that  should  seek  in  the  biblical  historians  exact  history, 
as  it  is  called,  would  find  himself  disappointed.  To  antiquity 
such  historiography  as  ^ve  now  demand  was,  in  general,  little 
known.  Neither  Herodotus,  nor  Thucydides,  nor  Xenophon,. 
Exact  his-  neither  Livy  nor  Tacitus,  give  "  exact "  history.  With  the 
kmnvi""to  Oriental  writers  especially,  what  we  call  critical-historical 
anticiuity.  investigation  is  scarcely  in  its  beginnings.  An  employment  of 
sources,  indeed,  naturally  found  place,  and  we  are  often  put  in 
the  position  to  cast  a  look  into  these.  The  author  of  the  Books 
of  Kings  drew  from  the  public  annals  of  the  kings  of  Israel 
and  Judah  ;  other  sources  were  the  monuments,  popular  songs, 
or  collections  of  songs  (cf.  Josh.  x.  13  and  2  Sam.  i.  18,  also 
Num.  xxi.  14),  furthermore,  genealogical  registers,  but  par- 
ticularly oral  tradition.  This  contains,  it  is  true,  information 
with  reference  to  actual  events,  but  information  that  hj^ 
already  passed  through  the  more  or  less,  accurate  remembrance, 
and  through  the  phantasy  of  the  people.  In  general,  in  hoary- 
antiquity,  or,  if  the  popular  spirit  is  unusually  moved  through 
great  occurrences,  even  later,  poetically  colored  legends  and 
history  can  be  distinguished  by  no  means  strictly.     As  a  rule 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  IDEAL  ON  THE  HISTORICAL.      299 

there  was  no  critical  sifting  and  working  over  of  the  materials 
according  to  the  various  sources.  If  about  one  and  the  same 
fact  two  or  more  different  traditions  were  in  vogue,  as,  e.g. 
about  the  changing  of  Jacob's  name  (Gen.  xxxii.  28  and  xxxv. 
10),  about  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus  (Matt.  ii.  and  Luke 
ii.),  it  might  hai^pen  either  that  the  historians  only  knew  of 
the  one,  and  reproduced  this  one,  as,  e.g.  Matthew  alone  speaks 
of  the  magi,  and  Luke  alone  of  the  shepherds  of  Bethlehem ; 
or  that  they  knew  both  and  (without  harmonizing  them) 
reproduced  both  (cf.  Gen.  I.e.;  Luke  i.  26-38,  coll.  iii.  23  f.).^ 
But  the  religious  popular  spirit  has  exercised  an  influence  not 
only  on  the  sources  themselves,  but  also  on  the  elaboration  of 
the  same.  Hence  in  the  biblical  historiography  we  are  to 
distinguish,  1)  the  transmitted  and  given  material,  and 
2)    the   reliqious  pragmatism.     In    the  Old    Testament   this  Reiidous 

.         .        7  .  11-  1-1  j.y        pragmatism 

I")ragmatism  is  theocratic^  and  tins  not  only  m  the  sense  that 

the  religious  and  the  national  were  identified,  but  also  in  the 

sense  that  not  so  much  man  as  God  is  the  acting  person.     The  Godtheact- 
.        ,        ,  .  .  «t  1  1  •   1         1  •  ing  person, 

national     theocratic    pragmatism,    through    which    the   given 

material  is  more  or  less  modified,  is  found  in  by  no  means  an 

equal  degree  in  all  the  historical  books  of  the  Bible ;  in  the 

fou!\last^Books  of  the  Pentateuch  and  in  the  Book  of  Joshua 

more  than  in  Genesis ;  in  the  Books  of  Kings  more  than  in 

the  Book  of  Judges  and  in  the  Books  of  Samuel,  etc.     We 

meet  it  also  now  in  a  purer,  now  in   a   less  pure  form ;  the 

latter,  either  so  that  the  theocratic  dominates  at  the  expense 

of  the  historical  or  at  the  expense  of  the  moral,  or  so  that  the 

theocratical  has  begun  to  petrify  into  the  hierarchical,  as  in  the 

Books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiab,  and  Chronicles ;  or  finally,  so  that 

the  religious  has  passed  entirely  into  the  national,  as  in  the 

Book  of  Esther.     More  important  still  is  the  other  side  of  the  immediate 

7.  T  I      •        •  J'    7J  ^j  '         derivation 

biblical  pragmatism,  viz.  the  immediate  derivation  oj  all  things  of  all  things 
from  God,  the  one  exalted  above  all  creatures,  the  almighty   "^^"^ 

I  For  explanations  of  the  phenomena  discussed,  more  in  harmony  with 
the  usual  view  of  inspiration,  see  on  the  passage  in  Genesis  Delitzsch, 
Comm.;  on  the  passages  in  the  Gospels  Godet  and  Lange,  Cotum.  —  Tr. 


800 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  TOE  INTERPRETER. 


Uiracles. 


Tlie  Chris- 
tian thoo- 
eratic  idea. 


freator,  the  just  and  holy  King  and  Lord  of  his  people  and 
kingdom,  the  compassionate  Leader  and  Saviour  of  his  o'.vii, 
and  the  referring  of  all  tJdngs  to  him  as  the  liighest  and  only 
good  (see,  among  many  passages,  Ps.  xxiii. ;  Ixiii. ;  Ixxiii.  25, 2G  ; 
xci.  et  al.),  and  the  One  to  whom  all  honor  is  due  (cf.  Isa.  xlii.  8  ; 
xlviii.  9  ;  Ps.  xxiii.  4  :  Ezek.  xxxvi.  22  et  al.).  Prom  this  theo- 
cratic point  of  view,  and  not  simply  and  solely  from  ignorance  of 
the  laws  of  nature,  are  the  miraculous  accounts  to  be  explained. 
The  miracle  is  to  the  biblical  writers  an  event  in  which  the 
judging  or  saving  power  of  God  is  revealed  in  an  extraordinary 
way  —  "the  hand,  the  outstretched  arm,  of  the  Lord,"  "some- 
thing new  which  God  brings  about  in  the  world"  (cf.  Tsa.  xlii.. 
9  ;  xliii.  19  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26,  coll.  the  Kaivrj  ktl(tl<;  2  Cor.  v.  17). 
Our  distinction  of  natural  and  supernatural  was,  in  a,  great 
measure,  foreign  to  the  biblical  writers  ;  to  them  everything 
was  supernatural  in  which  the  power  of  God  impressed  itself 
upon  their  consciousness  ;  a  miracle  was  to  them  everything 
in  which  the  salvation  of  God  was  revealed  to  them.  Hence 
Jesus  adduces  among  the  divine  signs  by  which  it  might  be 
known  that  the  Son  of  Man  had  come,  also,  and  not  least 
of  all,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  poor  (Luke  vii.  22  ; 
iv.  18).  This  religious  pragmatism  underwent  in  the  post- 
exilian  and  ante-Clu'istian  period  more  than  one  change ;  in 
part  it  was  altered  through  the  fact  that  God's  matters  were 
identified  with  the  priestly  and  Levitical  interest,  in  part  it 
degenerated  into  the  legendary  (beginning  in  the  Book  of  Daniel, 
culminating  in  the  Book  of  Tobias)  ;  in  part,  lastly,  it  was  lost 
in  the  national  (1  and  2  ISIacc),  and  historiography  drew  near 
to  the  so-called  profane.  Through  the  appearance  of  Christ, 
the  religious  spirit,  and  with  it  the  religio-poetical  legend,  as 
well  as  the  religious  pragmatism  was  again  powerfully 
awakened ;  only  in  the  place  of  the  general  theocratic  idea  the 
special  theocratic  idea  came  in,  l)y  virtue  of  which  it  is,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  concrete  spirit  of  Christ  from  which  all  saving 
infiuencfes  proceed  ;  on  the  other  hand,  not  a  whole  nation,  but 
only  the  elect   believers  out  of    the    same,  nor   the  believers 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  IDEAL  ON  TEE  HISTORICAL.      801 

merely  of  one  people,  but  of  all  kinds  of  people,  are  the  special 
object  of  the  redeeming  and  saving  God.     This  is  the  point 
of  view  from  which  the  biblical,  and  in  particular  the  New 
Testament,  history  is  to  be  considered  and  explained.^ 
85.    Legendary  Element  in  the  N.T. 
That  there  is  also  a  legendary  element  in  the  New  Testament 
comes  of  the  fact  that  the  Christian  spirit,  even  in  the  writing 
of  history  is  not  merely  receptive  but  also  productive.     The  Criteria, 
question   arises,  to  be  sure,  as   to  "the   criteria  by  which  an 
account  may  be  known  to  be  lege^idary.     Since  between  legend 
and  history  there  are  an  infinite  number  of  gradations,  and  the 
religious  phantasy  can  run  through  the  whole  scale  from  the 
greatest  possible  activity  to  perfect  tranquillity,  we  can  rarely 
determine  with  absolute  certainty  what  is  legendary  and  what 
is  purely  historical.     But  this  must,  once  for  all,  be  observed 
that  the   spirit  which    produces  fables  and   legends,   or  that 
embellishes  the  historical  in  a  poetical  and  legendary  way,  is 
itself  a  fact,  and  testifies  mediately  to  the  facts  by  which  it  has 
been  awakened.     Still  more,  we  may  suppose,  as  a  rule,  that 
the  historian,  even  when  he  relates  what  is  improbable,  means 
to  narrate  the  historical.     From  this  presupposition  the  exegete 
is  to  proceed,  and  as  long  as  it  is  practicable,  is  to  suppose  at 
least,  a  historical  basis;  he  is  not  to   pronounce  at  once  the 
improbable  to  be  impossible  ;  he  is  rather  to  seek  to  reconcile 
the  contradictions.     But  he  is  not  to  seek  to  remove  the  con^ 
tradictions  at  all  hazards,  or   to  palliate  the    improbabilities; 
since  it  does   not  follow  from  the  fact  that  the  author  meant 
to  tell  the  truth,  that  he  could  tell  it.     Although  the  limits 
between  legend  and  history  are  often  hard  to  be  drawn,  —  and 
not  least  of  all  in  the  biblical  history,  —  yet  there  are  certain 
characteristics  by  which,  with  great  probability  at  least,  a  nar- 
ration mav  be  reco«jnized  as  fabulous  or  legendary.  1 )  The  Deviation 

J  '^  from  an  au- 

surest  criterion  would  be,  if  on  one  and  the  same  event,  side  thcnticated 
by  side  with  the  traditional  we  had  still  an  authentic  account, 
the  deviation  of  that  from  this.   .  But  for  this  there  is  in  the 
I  The  reader  must  be  careful  here  to  pick  out  tlie  grains  of  tmth.— Tr. 
26 


account. 


302         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

New  Testament  only  a  single  sure  example  at  our  command, 
viz.  Acts  ix.  29  f.  coll.  Gal.  i.  16-19.  Other  instances  are 
uncertain,  as,  e.g.  AcLs  xv.  coll.  Gal.  ii.  1-10.^  Still  less  is 
this  criterion  applicable  to  the  gospel  narratives,  where, 
iiideed,  one  and  the  same  faot  is  narrated  by  two,  three,  or  even 
four  Evangelists,  of  whom,  however,  no  one  is  to  be  regarded 
with  certainty  as  an  eye-witness.  But  from  the  one  cert-ain 
example,  now,  it  is  clear  that  the  reporter  of  Acts  ix.  knew, 
indeed,  that  Paul  journeyed  to  Jerusalem  some  time  after  his 
conversion,  but  that  —  jirobably  on  the  authority  of  his  informer, 
or  of  tradition  —  he  erroneously  makes  Paul  to  journey  to 
Jerusalem,  and  to  associate  with  all  the  Apostles  soon  after 
his  conversion,  and  immediately  from  Damascus  (against  which 
Gal.  i.  19).  2)  But  a  comparison  may  be  instituted  be- 
tween parallel  accounts  even  if  no  one  of  them  rests  upon 
Tiie  more  immediate  eye-witness.  In  this  case  we  will  not  err  if  we 
of  two  par-  regard  the  more  embellished  account,  especially  it  it  borders 
counts  more  on  the  miraculous,  as  the  more  legendary,  and  the  simpler  and 

likely  to  be  .  ,  i  •  •    ■  i        -r-<  ^  t     i 

legendary,  more  unassuming  as  the  more  historical.  Examples  are,  Luke 
iii.  22  (coll.  Matt.  iii.  16)  ;  Luke  xxii.  43,  44  (coll.  Matt.  xxvi. 
37  f. ;  Mark  xiv.  34)  ;  cf.  also  Luke  vii.  2-10  (coll.  Matt.  viii. 
5—10).  The  account  of  the  speaking  with  tongues  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  4-11)  may  also  be  compared  with  Paul's 
declaration  with  reference  to  yAwo-o-ats  A.aA.eti/  (1  Cor.  xiv.),^ 
according  to  which  latter  the  speaking  with  tongues  is  not  a 
miraculous  speaking  in  foreign  languages,  but  an  ecstatic  and 
Cages  that    to  Others  unintelligible  jiraying.  3)   But  it  happens  very 

special         freoucntlv  that  such  a  comparison  either  leads  to  no  result, 

difficulty.       ,       ^  ',  .  ^  111, 

because  the  various  accounts  are  not  related  to  each  other  as 
the  simpler  or  more  original  and  the  derived  and  more  embel- 
lished, or  because,  in  general,  no  comparison  at  all  is  possible. 
Indices.        In  such  cases   the  following  indices  of  the  legendary  are  the 

1  Sec,  per  contra,  Ilackett,  on  the  passages  in  xVcts;  and  Lijhtfooty  on 
the  passage  in  Galatians.  —  Tii. 

2  There  is  no  necessity  for  supposing  that  the  phenomena  of  the  Pente- 
costal "speaking  with  tongues"  were  identical  wiih  those  mentioned  by 
Paul.  —  Tk. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  IDEAL  ON  THE  HISTORICAL.      303 

surest :  a)  multiplied  revelations  in  dreams  ;  we  say  "  muU 
tiplied  "  !  since  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  especially  with  plain 
men  who  have  not  yet  quite  outgrown  the  life  of  nature,  or  in 
certain  important  moments,  apocalyptic  dreams  may  occur ; 
but  a  multiplication  of  these,  as  in  Matt.  i.  and  ii.,  indicates  a 
legend.  /3)  Angelic  apparitions.  As  the  idea  of  angels 
belongs  to  the  childlike,  poetical  form  of  the  religious  conscious- 
ness, so  a  narrative  embellished  with  angelic  apparitions  is  to 
be  put  to  the  account  of  the  involuntarily  poeticizing  legend,  as, 
e.g.  Luke  ii.  8  ff.  Angelic  apparitions  also,  as  a  rule,  disappear 
in  proportion  as  the  traditional  account  passes  over  into  the 
authentic.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  an  instructive  proof  of 
this.  y)  Miracles  are  a  sure  sign  of  a  fabulous  or  legendary 
narrative.  Miracles  are  distinguished  from  wonders,^  by  the 
circumstance  that  the  religious  element  recedes  while  the 
strange,  unnatural  becomes  prominent.  Yet  there  are  transi- 
tions. The  Scriptures  themselves  are  not  entirely  free  from 
miracles  ;  we  call  attention  to  only  2  Kings  xiii.  21  and  Matt, 
xvii.  27.  8)  Furthermore  also,  the  narratives  or  features 
are  to  be  attributed  to  legendary  development,  which  —  even 
if  something  historical  lies  at  the  basis  —  betrays  itself  as 
formed  after  a  projDhecy  or  typical  account  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  Matt.  ii.  13-15  coll.  Hos.  xi.  1 ;  Matt.  ii.  16-18  coll. 
Jer.  xxxi.  15  ;  or,  if  of  several  parallel  representations  the  one 
is  more  like  an  Old  Testament  type,  as  e.g.  Matt,  xxvii.  34 
coll.  Mark  xv.  23,  in  ^uch  case  that  representation  which  is 
most  unlike  its  type  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  more  historical,  c) 
Finally,  such  accounts  have  suffered  the  influence  of  the  legend, 
as  are  pre-eminent  for  contradictions  and  obscurities.  (Con- 
tradictions, especially  in  the  history  of  the  Resiwrection ; 
obscurity,  e.g.  in  the  history  of  the  Transfiguration,  most  of  all 
in  Luke).^ 

1  AVc  have  usually  rendered  "  ^YuDder  "  by  the  Enjilisli  word  "  miracle." 
The  word  "  Mirakel "  has  a  bad  sense  which  does  not  attach  to  the  Eng- 
lish word.  For  a  good  classification  of  phenomena  of  this  sort  see  Trench 
on  Miracles.  —  Tr. 

2  If  it  v/cre  a  made-out  case  that  the  New  Testament  has  a  legendary 


304  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

86.   Explanation  of  Miracles. 

The  explanation  of  miracles  (Wunder)  belongs  also  to  the 
.  province  of  the  historical  interpretation.  For  general  obsei-va- 
tions  we  refer  to  what  has  been  said  in  §  84.  Here  the  Yarious 
(  Th&Ortho-  methods  of  explaining  miracles  are  to  be  tested.  a)  TJie 
v  aiion.^^  ^^'  Orthodox  explanation  accepts  the  miraculous  accounts,  as  they 
are  giv^.  as  wonderful  (supernatural)  as  well  as  as  historical 
events.  It  is  in  so  far  in  the  right  as  the  sacred  authors  mean 
to  recount  the  miraculous  as  having  happened,  and  what  has 
happened  as  miraculous,  and  exegesis,  conceived  in  its  narrow 
and  strict  sense,  has  no  other  tasli  than  to  explain  the  sense 
and  the  thoughts  of  the  author  as  they  are  given.  Accord- 
ingly it  does  not,  in  fact,  seem  to  be  allowable  to  the  exegete 
to  conceive  of  a  miraculous  account-otherwise  than  as  the  author 
gives  it.  But  the  interpreter  of  historical  writings  is,  eo  ipso, 
also  a  historical  investigator,  and  has,  as  such,  the  task  to  in- 
quire, how  the  account  lying  before  him  is  related  to  the  fact 
itself.  This  applies  to  all  historical  narratives,  not  to  the 
miraculous  narratives  alone  ;  but  these,  of  course,  are  not  ex- 

The  natural  cluded  from  such  investigation.     *)9)   The  natural  explanation. 

exp  anation  rpj^-^^  now,  accepts  as  its  task  just  the  clearing  up  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  reporter  to  the  facts.  It  proceeds  from  the  —  not 
incorrect  —  assumption  that  a  discrimination  must  be  made 
between  the  pure  facts  and  the  conception  of  the  witnesses  or 
reporters.  Since,  now,  belief  in  the  miraculous  was  character- 
istic of  that  time,  and  men  were  accordingly  inclined  to  regard  as 
supernatural  facts  that  transcended  their  power  of  conception, 
it  is  according  to  this  assumption  the  work  of  tlie  interpreter 
to  separate  everything  miraculous  or  supernatural,  and  to  put  it 
to  the  account  of  the  reporter  or  of  the  first  witnesses.  Hence 
the  natural  explanation  proceeds  partly  from  ihe  assumption  that, 
in  general,  there  can  be  nothing  miraculous,  partly  from  the  other 
assumption,  that  the  fact,  even  though  related  from  the  stand- 
element  the  classification  in  the  text  mi'^ht  be  of  value.  But  after  all  the 
acutcness  that  has  been  employed  by  Baur  and  his  followers  to  put  the 
matter  beyond  doubt,  many  learned  men  refuse  to  be  convinced.  —  Tb. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  IDEAL  ON  THE  HISTORICAL.      305 

point  of  the  reporter,  is  yet  related  so  precisely  that  the  pure 
fact  may  be  separated  with  certainty  from  its  husk.  The  fact, 
then,  is  commonly  shown  to  be  an  altogether  ordinary  and 
trivial  occurrence,  in  which  the  only  miracle  is  that  it  could 
have  been  regarded  as  a  miracle.  y)  The  mi/stical^exj^u-  Tiie mystl-  > 
ation  has  this  in  common  with  the  natural,  that  it  also  recog-  natioiu  "  .  ^ 
nizes  only  a  mediate  influence  of  God  on  the  world  of  nature 
and  of  man,  but  this  mediation  is  brought  about  through  hidden 
and  secret  powers,  through  animal  magnetism,  through  the 
polarity  of  natural  forces,  through  the  mysterious  connection 
between  spirit  and  nature.  Thus  the  mystical  explanation 
thinks  to  free  the  biblical  miracle  from  its  unnatural  tang, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  save  it  as  mystery.  The  judgment  of 
this  method  need  in  no  case  be -influenced  by  the  fact  that  in 
this  the  Orthodox  see  a  concession  to  Rationalism,  and.  the 
Rationalists  a  concession  to  Orthodoxy,  but  both  parties  se^  an 
incompleteness  in  it.  Not  the  relation  of  an  explanation  to 
the  parties  just  dominant,  but  simply  and  alone  its  relation 
to  the  sense  of  the  author  and  to  the  facts  should  here  deter- 
mine our  judgment.  Xow  many  mystical  explanations,  as,  e  g. 
the  explanation  of  the  miracle  at  Cana  (and  the  miraculous 
feeding),  in  favor  since  Augustine,  are  certainly  entire  failures;* 
but  some  cures,  as  those  through  the  laying  on  of  hands,  through 
active  and  passive  touching,  appear  susceptible  of  explanation 
from  magnetic  powers.  In  any  case  it  must  be  gi-anted  that 
there  are  "  mystical  phenomena  in  nature,"  which  the  common 
human  understanding  can  neither  explain  nor  believe.  Yet 
the  mystical  explanation,  even  in  the  most  favorable  cases,  is 
insufficient,  so  much  the  less  as,  according  to  Matthew,  most  of 
the  miraculous  healings  were  accomplished  not  through  contact, 
but  through  the  mere  word.  8)  Tho^^mj^hical  explanation.  The mythi-  h 
This  finds  its  support  in  the  fact  that  it  has  exposedtBe  in-  ation.  / 

sufficient  and  the  fallacious  in.  the  other  explanations,  in  partic- 
ular of  the  natural.  It  is  further  supported  by  the  fact  that  it 
recognizes  the  importance  and  the  influence  of  the  religious 
legend,  and  hasyconsistently  carried  out  this  view.  That  the  fun- 
26*    '  "^ 


306         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

damental  facts  of  Christianity  were  for  a  long  time  propagated 
through  oral  tradition,  that  this  was  pervaded  by  religious 
phantasy  and  received  manifold  embellishments,  that  it  belongs 
to  the  essence  of  pious  phantasy  to  regard  the  facts  as  miracu- 
lous, and  as  having  taken  place  through  the  immediate  dis- 
pensation of  God,  —  with  regard  to  these  things  at  the  present 
day  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.^  But  the  mythical  ex- 
planation errs  in  that  it  does  not  properly  distinguish  between 
historical  facts  which  are  only  modified  and  embellished  througli 
the  legend,  and  myths  or  legends  which  are  according  to  their 
very  essence  embodiments  of  the  ideal,  in  general,  products  of 
the  religious  phantasy.  Particularly  has  it  gone  much  too  far 
in  the  derivation  of  New  Testament  narratives  from  Old 
Testament  ideas  and  types,  as  the  forced  nature  of  so  many  of 
Strauss's  explanations  of  miracles  sufficiently  proves.  With 
reference  to  these  various  explanations  of  miracles  it  must  rather 
be  said,  that  the  biblical  miracles  are  too  heterogeneous,  for  one 
No  one  method  of  explanatioti  to  he  applicable  to  them  all.  We  call 
pijcabie'to  attention  only  to  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  Red 
Sea,  which  is  represented  as  a  miracle  of  God,  and  yet  as  ren- 
dered possible  by  a  strong  east  wind  (Ex.  xiv.  13  coll.  21)  ;  to  the 
standing  still  of  the  sun  at  Gibeon,  which  is  expressly  borrowed 
from  a  poetical  book,  the  Book  of  the  Upright  (Josh.  x.  14)  ;  to 
the  highly  embellished  account  of  the  ascension  of  the  propliet 
Elijah  (2  Kings  ii.)  ;  further,  to  the  casting  out  of  demons  on 
the  part  of  Jesus,  which  are  in  part  explicable  psychologically 
(cf.  esp.  Mark  i.  21-28)  ;  to  the  cures,  in  which  the  faith  of 
those  concerned  comes  into  consideration  as  a  recipient  factor 
(cf.  esp.  Mark  v.  25-34)  ;  and  the  cases  in  which  no  miraculous 
healing  could  take  place  on  account  of  the  lack  of  faith  (Mark 
vi.  5).  We  may,  further,  distinguish  the  cures  through  touch 
(Mark  i.  41  ;  v.  27)  ;  tlu'ough  spittle  and  other  manipulatiojis 
(Mark  vii.  33  f. ;  John  ix.  G)  ;  and  the  cures  performed  at  a 
distance  (Matt.  viii.  5-13  ;  xv.  22-28).      Of  special  difficulty 

1  Yet  many  who  liave  some  claim  to  be  regarded  as  "reasonable"  men 
Jo  doubt  1  hem.  —  Til. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  IDEAL  ON  THE  HISTORICAL.      30T 

are   the  awakenings  from   the  dead;   yet   here  we  find   the 
peculiar  circumstance  that  the  greatest  miraculous  awakening 
seems  to  have  been  entirely  unknown  to  the  three  synoptists, 
and  that  the  two  first  Evangelists  only  know  of  one  case  (Matt. 
ix.  23-25  ;  Mark  v.  35-42),  which  Jesus  himself  did  not  regard 
as  an  awakening  of  a  dead  person  (cf.  Matt.  ix.  24 ;  Mark  v. 
39).^     Furthermore,  the  miraculous  influences  on  unconscious 
nature  are  a  source  of  difficulty,  as  in  the  stilling  of  the  tempest, 
in  the    miraculous  feeding,  etc.     From  these    examples  it   is  There  are 
clear,         1)  that  neither  in  the  Old  Testament  nor  in  the  New  accounts 
are  miraculous  accounts  wanting  that  admit  of  a  natural  ex-  of  natural 
planation.     This  is  the  case,  either  when  the  reporter  himself  ^^^ 
gives  an  intimation  in  the  miracle  that  some  means  have  been 
employed,  or  when  an  effect  that  was  inexplicable  at  that  time, 
is  explicable  according  to  our  insiglit  into  physics  and  anthro- 
pology.    Only  we  are  not  to  forget  that  if  the  Evangelists, 
e.g.  mention  means  which  Jesus  employed,  these  were  either 
symbolical,  or  in  general  insufficient  to  have  produced  the  given 
effect  in  a  natural  way ;  and  if  the  matter  is  explicable  psycho- 
logically, yet  an  unusual  spiritual  power  on  the  part  of  Jesus 
must  always  be  supposed.     In  any  case,  if  a  New  Testament 
miracle  is  to  be  explained  naturally,  the  hiatus  between-  the 
cause  and  effect  must  be  filled  up  through  a  supposed  medium. 
2)  The  mystical  explanation  may  be  here  and  there  apiolicable  Themysti- 
and,  e.g.  the -healing  power  of  Jesus  may  have  been  mediated  ation^sorae- 
through  magnetism ;  only  no  other  than  a  moderate  and  con-  cabfe.^^^  *' 
siderate  use  can  be  made  of  this  explanation,  if  we  would  not 
lose  ourselves  in  untenable  hypotheses.     That  the  laying  on 
of  hands,  and  indeed  the  touch,  of  certain  persons  under  certain 
circumstances  may  produce  cures  is  attested  through  credible 
examples,  and   that   a   special    power   of   this  kind  dwelt  in 
Jesus,  which,  however,  could  produce  its  full  effect  only  under 

1  For  reasons  why  the  s5'noptlsts,tliough  they  may  have  known  of  the 
raisins':  of  Lazarus,  should  liave  failed  to  mention  the  event,  see  Godet, 
Tholuck,  and  Luthardt,  Com.  in  loc.  John.  To  lay  stress  on  Jesus's  ex- 
pression, at  the  roisini?  of  the  dauj2;hter  of  Jaivns,  "  the  maid  is  not  deadf 
but  $leepeth,"  seems,  to  say  the  least,  unscientilic.  —  Tr. 


808         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

the  condition  of  the  subjective  factor,  faith,  seems  to  be  beyond 
doubt.     But  to  extend  the  mystical  application  farther  ia  haz- 
The  mythi-  ardous  and  arbitrary.  3)  The  mytldcal  explanation  is  appli- 

a?ion^\vhen  Cable  in  many  cases,  as  when  a  miraculous  account  is  explicable 
apphca   e.   git^jg^.  from  the  religio-poetical  conception  and  its  involuntary 
translation  from  poesy  into  the  prose  of  actual  history,  or  from 
the  legend's  receiving  continual  additions ;  or  finally,  from  the 
There  involuntary  embodiment  of  an  idea.     But  even  although  the 

mahisV^Sn  best  method  may  have  been  applied,  there  usually  remains  yet 
iquet.  ^^  irrational  residuum  or  a  non  liquet,  whether  it  be  that  the 
narrative  gives  no  clear  insight  into  the  connection  of  events, 
or  that  the  historical  nature  of  the  event  is  disputed ;  or  in 
general,  that  the  narrative  defies  all  explanation,  as  the  awak- 
enings of  the  dead.  The  interpreter  is  to  apply,  indeed,  all 
media  of  explanation  sanctioned  by  science,  he  is  also  not  to 
despair  of  the  possibility  of  an  explanation ;  but  he  is  also  to  be 
modest  and  truth-loving  enough  to  confess  his  ignorance.^ 

P)  Influence  of  the  Individual  Spirit  of  the  Author  on  the 
Historical  Representation, 

87.    Idiosyncracies  of  Biblical  Writers. 

That  by  no  means  all  the  peculiarities  of  the  biblical  nar- 
ration are  to  be  laid  to  the  account  of  tradition  and.  the  religious 
spirit,  but  many  of  them  to  the  individuality  of  the  authors,  is 
certain.     But  what  is  to  be  ascribed  to  that  and  what  to  this, 
it  is  in  many  cases  impossible   to  determine  with   certainty. 
'Are  there  criteria  by  which  we  may  decide  with  probability 
that  a  given  feature  is  the  product  not  of  tradition  (oral  or 
written),  but  of  the  individual  thoughts  of  the  author?     Un- 
Critpria  for  doubtedly    SO.     The    surest   criteria   may   be    the    following: 
minationofl)   The  Combining  of  two  different  accounts,  as  Luke  iii.  23, 
thoujriits  of  of  the  genealogy,  the  object  of  which  is  to  show  the  Davidic 
descent  of  Jesus,  and  the  supernatural  conception  through  the 

1  Is  it  not  probaWc,  that  after  the  "natural,"  tho  "mystical"  and  the 
**  niythical "  explanations  have  "  had  their  day,  and  ceased  to  be,"  the  so- 
called  "  Orthodox"  explanatiou  will  maintain  its  place?  — Tr, 


INFLUENCE  OP  THE  IDEAL  ON  THE  HISTORICAL.       309 

observation  (wv  vl6<i)  wg  ivofxi^ero  tov  'Iojot;^,  etc.  Another 
case  in  point  is  where  Mark  combines  the  (probably  genuine) 
account,  that  the  question  to  Jesus  with  regard  to  fasting  pro- 
ceeded from  the  disciples  of  John  (Matt.  ix.  14),  and  the  other 
account  which  puts  the  question  in  the  mouth  of  the  Pharisees 
(Luke  V.  33).  2)  Elucidations,  as  Mark  vii.  3,  4  (on  the 
Jewish  purificatory  rites),  also  Luke  vi.  13,  ov^  koL  dTroo-ToXov? 
6vwfia(T€v,  et  al.  3)  Illustration  and  broad  circumstantiality 
of  narration,  as  Mark  i.  32,  35;  ii.  4;  iii.  5;  viii.  14;  xi.  16, 
etc.  4)  But  that  in  particular  is  to  be  reckoned  to  the 
aecount  of  the  author  himself  which  indicates  a  special  m- 
tention.  This  may  appear  even  in  minute  features ;  cf.  Luke 
xi.  33  with  Matt.  v.  15.  If  Matthew  has  without  doubt -the 
more  original  in  the  words  "...  it  lighteth  all  that  are  in 
the  house,"  —  which  points  to  the  house  of  the  theocracy  in 
which  the  disciples  are  to  shine  as  the  light  of  the  world,  — 
the  corresponding  passage  in  Luke  refers  in  the  words  "...  in 
order  that  those  enterinsj  in  mav  see  the  lifjht,"  to  the  entrance 
of  those  that  are  without  (the  heathen)  into  the  theocracy. 
Cf.  further,  Luke  xiii.  26  with  Matt.  vii.  22.  Matthew  has 
the  words  of  Jesus  thus  :  "...  Many  will  say  to  me  in  that 
day,  Lord,  Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name,  and  in 
thy  name  have  cast  out  demons,  and  in  thy  name  performed 
many  works  of  power  ?  "  According  to  Luke  the  words  run : 
"...  Then  shall  ye  begin  to  say,  we  have  eaten  and  drunk  in 
thy  presence,  and  thou  hast  taught  in  our  streets."  In  both 
places  stands  the  rebuffing  answer  of  the  Lord.  In  Luke, 
therefore,  the  implication  is  that  the  fact  of  having  witnessed 
the  words  and  deeds  of  the  Lord,  and  of  having  enjoyed 
external  communion  with  him,  furnishes  no  valid  claim  for 
acceptance  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  cf.  2  Cor.  v.  16;  in 
Matthew,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  performance  of  great 
works  of  power  in  the  name  of  Jesus  does  not  entitle  one  to 
such  acceptance.  Clearer  and  more  evidencing  than  such 
seemingly  undesigned  features  are,  the  glorious  prominence 
given  to  the  Samaritans,  Luke  x.  33  ff.;  xvii.  16;  the  accept- 


310         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

ance  of  publicans  and  sinners  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  Luke  vii. 
37  Q. ;  XV. ;  xviii.  10-14,  et  al.  Yet  of  these  we  shall  speak  in 
the  following  section. 

S.    The  Ascertaining  of  the  Object  and  tlie  Intention 
of  an  Entire  Writing. 

88.    The  True  Stand-point. 

The  ascertaining  of  the  intention  of  a  writing  is  the  highest, 
but  in  part  also  the  most  difficult,  task  of  exegesis.  It  is  most 
intimately  connected  with  the  logical  explanation,  and  is  itself 
essentially  a  logical  operation.  But,  at  the  same  time,  it  pre- 
supposes the  historical  explanation,  and  is  itself  a  historical 
investigation.  The  object  of  a  writing,  that  is  to  say,  is  to  be 
learned  from  its  occasion,  which  in  turn  is  conditioned  through 
the  nature  of  the  readers.  Not  less  is  •  the  intention  of  a 
writing  conditioned  through  the  individuality,  nationality,  and 
temporal  setting  of  the  author. 
Views  of  As  regards  the  object  of  a  writing,  the  older  interpreters, 

preters.  led  by  the  conviction  that  the  Bible,  as  a  wliole  as  well  as  in 
its  individual  parts,  is  the  word  of  God,  and  that  its  authors 
were  inspired,  thought  of  nothing  else  under  this  object  than 
divine  and  particularly  dogmatic  teaching.  They  went  so  far, 
indeed,  as  to  regard  the  question  as  to  the  occasion  and  oliject 
of  a  biblical  writing  as  inadmissible,  because  this  degraded  the 
divine  writing  to  the  compass  of  merely  human  motives. 
What  has  been  said  already  (cf.  I,  §  37  f.)  was  meant  to  show 
Modern  the  one-sidedness  of  this  stand-point.  The  more  modern  inter- 
pretation which  plants  itself  on  the  historical  stand-point,  views 
every  writing,  sacred  or  profane,  chiefly  with  reference  to  its 
intention  and  object.  This  stand-point  is  in  so  far  entirely 
correct,  as  1)  one  submits  himself  in  this  to  the  guidance 
of  an  unbiased  exegesis,  and  as  2)  one  does  not  end  in 
Tendon-  "tendency."  "  Tendency  "  differs  from  "  intention"  thus  :  the 
latter  designates  the  direction  of  the  author  to  an  object  in 
general ;  the  former  the  direction  of  the  author  to  a  personal 
or   partisan   object.     The   posibility  of   such   is,   in   general, 


view. 


cy  "  and 
•'  in  ten 
tion." 


OBJECT  AND  INTENTION  OF  AN  ENTIRE  WRITING.      311 

always  to  be  granted,  but  to  assume  beforehand  the  reality 
•thereof  is  allowable  neither  to  the  exegete  nor  to  the  historian. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  assumption  of  an  intention,  which  the 
author  has  had  in  the  production  of  his  writing  is  not  only- 
allowable  but,  especially  in  doctrinal  writing,  necessary,  and 
the  searching  for  the  same  is  an  essential  task  of  the  exegete. 
Yet  we  do  not  mean  to  say  that  every  writing  must  have  a 
single  or  special  ohject,  or  that  the  exegete  is  under  obligation 
to  impose  such  an  object  on  the  author.  This  could  often  be 
done  only  by  violence  and  by  the  application  of  categories 
which  would  be  foreign  to  the  author.  Thus  it  would  be 
altogether  unjustifiable  to  try  to  subtilize  out  a  single  object  or 
fundamental  thought  in  1  Corinthians,  or  to  suppose  that 
because  Luke  and  John  specify  an  object  of  their  Gospels, 
Mark,  e.g.,  must  also  have  such  an  object.  Yet,  in  most  cases, 
there  is  an  intention,  and  the  searching  for  this  is  justified. 

89,   Method  of  ascertaining  the  Intention. 

How  now  is  the  intention  of  a  writing  to  be  ascertained  ? 
1)  It  must  be  seen,  first  of  all,  whether  the  author  himself  has  Author's 

T.T7.         7/.7'  1  1  ••  1      explanation. 

explained  himself  on  this  matter  ;  such  an  explanation  is  to  be 

sought  in  the  prooemium  or  in  the  conclusion  of  his  writing. 

Such  an  explanation,  if  there  be  one,  wc  are  to  take  as  our 

starting-point.     But  what  if    there  is  none?     In    most  cases, 

therefore,  this  investigation  is  insufiicient,  whether  it  be  that 

the   author  has  not  expressed  himself   with  reference    to  his 

object,  or  that  his  explanation  informs  ur,,  indeed,  in  a  general 

way,  what  he  wished  to  accomplish  by  his  writing,  but  not  why 

he  wrote  precisely  thus.         2)    The  parenetical  part  of   his  Parenetical 

writing  is  still,  therefore,  especially  to  be  observed,  inasmuch 

as  the  exhortations  which  the  author  gives  to  his  readers  must 

refer  to  the  special  circumstances  of  the  latter,  to  the  occasion 

of  his  writing.     An  inference  must,  therefore,  be  made  from 

the  contents  of  the  exhortations  to  the  religious  condition,  or 

to  the  need  of  the  readers.     Yet  this  road  does  not  always 

lead  to  a  beneficial  end,  since  frequently  the  pareaesis  is  not 

always  clear  enough  as  to  its  intention  to  build  a  conclusion 


312 


SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 


Organism 
of  thought. 


upon  with  regard  to  the  readers,  and  from  this  with  regard  to 
Comparison  the  object  of  the  writinof ;  in  such  cases  it  is  necessary       o)  to 

of  the  prin-  *',,.,.  °       .       .       ,  ,     ,  .  .  .  ,      , 

cipai  part     compare  the  didactic  or  principal  part  of  the  wntuiiir  with  tlie 
with  the  .         rr^       1  .  /  ,  P   „         , 

parenesis.  parcnesis,  lo  this  end  we  must  observe  carefully  what  point 
the  author  specially  emphasizes  or  makes  prominent;  and 
thereupon  find  out  how  the  author's  doctrine  and  exhortation 
are  related  to  each  other. ,  The  more  patent  the  connection 
between  doctrine  and  exhortation  is,  the  more  assured  is  the 
conclusion  with  reference  to  the  intention  of  the  writing  in 
question.  But  if  by  these  means  a  very  probable  object  has 
been  arrived  at,  the  interpreter  should  not  even  then  go  to  rest 
as  if  it  were  an  entirely  settled  matter,  but  this  result  must 
now  be  further  confirmed  through  the  organism  of  thought  of 
the  whole.  But  this  must  not  be  found  by  dissecting  the 
writing  according  to  a  dogmatic  or  logical  scheme,  and  then 
subjecting  the  single  parts  as  well  as  we  can  to  these  categories. 
Stockmeyer  has  well  said  (Die  Structur  des  ersten  Johannes- 
briefs,  Basel  1873)  :  "  Sections  may  be  made  in  the  greatest 
variety  of  ways,  and  a  reason  may  always  be  given  why  one  is 
made  just  here ;  it  must  be  shown  how  within  a  section  the 
thoughts  move  about  a  definite  axis,  and  form  around  it  a 
transparent  crystal.  It  amounts  to  nothing  to  show  a  connec- 
tion from  verse  to  verse,  and  where  there  is  none  to  feign  it. 
Rather  where  the  connection  breaks  off  this  must  be  proved ; 
but  it  must  be  shown  that  it  here  ceases  because  something 
new  begins."  Not  until  the  previously  discovered  object  is 
confirmed  by  the  structure  of  the  whole,  is  it  to  be  regarded  as 
entirely  assured. 


a)    TJie  Intention  of  Doctrinal  Writings. 

90.   Intention  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

It  is  obvious  that  it  is  chiefly  the  doctrinal  writings,  that  is 
to  say  the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  that  will  exhibit 
an  object  of  the  authors.  By  way  of  showing  forth  the 
application  of  the  rules  that  have  been  given  we  adduce,  first 
of  all,  as  a  substratum  of  this  proof,  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ; 


INTENTION   OF   DOCTRINAL   WRITINGS.  313 

partly  on  account  of  its  importance,  partly  because  it  has  long 
been  an  object  of  the  profoundest  investigations.  We  mention 
here  only  the  labors  of  Baur  and  Mangold.  1)   The  first  Has  the 

Anostlp  py» 

question  then  will  be.  Has  the  Apostle  expressed  himself  with  pressed  his 
reference  to  the  object  and  intention  of  this  Epistle,  or  at  least, 
indicated  the  object  and  intention  ?  This  must  appear  in  the 
prooemium.  The  prooemium  concludes,  after  the  Apostle  has 
spoken  of  his  desire  to  see  the  Roman  Christians,  and  of. his 
Gentile  Apostolate,  with  the  very  important  words :  I  am  not 
ashamed  of  the  Gospel,  for  it  is  a  power  of  God  to  every  one 
that  believeth  in  it,  to  the  Jew  first  of  all,  and  also  to  the 
Greek,  for  the  righteousness  of  God  (Genit.  auctoris)  is 
revealed  therein,  etc.  Hence  "  the  Gospel  is  a  power  of  God 
for  both  the  grand  divisions  of  the  human  race,  because  it  is 
the  revelation  of  justification  by  faith,"  or  to  express  it  briefly : 
the  universalism  of  the  Gospel  of  justification  hy  faith.  This 
seems,  in  fact,  to  be  intended  as  the  theme  of  his  Epistle.  2) 
Does  the  parenetic  part  in  which  the  Apostle  must  make  special  Does  the 
reference  to  the  condition  and  nature  of  his  readers  agree  with  asree  wkh 
this  ?  and  does  he  perhaps  otherwise  indicate  the  kind  and  gfon  I'^P^^ 
nature  of  his  readers  ?  Is  the  Roman  community  to  be  thought 
of  as  made  up  of  Gentile  or  of  Jewish  Christians  ?  The  latter, 
as  is  well-known,  Baur  has  sought  on  weighty,  though  not  to 
be  sure  on  exegetical,  grounds  to  prove.  What  does  the 
Epistle  itself  say  about  it?  Not  a  few  passages  certainly 
apply  to  men  of  Jewish  nativity.  It  is  wortliy  of  observation, 
first  of  all,  that  Paul  in  the  part  in  which  he  discourses  of  the 
sinfulness  of  Gentiles  and  Jews  speaks  of  the  former  only  in 
the  third  person  (i.  18  ff. ;  ii.  14-16),  while  he  speaks  of  the 
Jews  in  the  second  person  (ii.,  esp.  vs.  1,  3f.,  17  f.),  and  where 
he  discusses  the  question  as  to  the  advantage  of  the  Jews,  in 
the  first  person  (iii.  9),  with  which  may  be  compared  iv.  1  {rov 
rraripa  rjfiCciv  'A(3p.),  So  also  vii.  1  has  Jews  in  view.  The 
passionate  beginning  (ix.  1-5)  seems  better  motived  if  the 
Apostle  has  Jewish  Christian  readers  in  mind.  .  But  the  follow- 
ing passages  are  decisive  for  Gentile  Christian  readers :  i.  5,  6. 
27 


314         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 

. . .  cv  Tratrtv  rot?  tOv^a-tv,  ...  Iv  ots  core  Kat  v/xct?.  .  .  . ,  vs.  13 : 
tva  TLva  KapTTov  ax^  '<at  cv  vfuv  Ka6(jj<s  koX  ev  rots  XotTrots  Wvcaiv ; 
xi.  13  :  v/xii/  ytt/3  Ae'yw  rots  tdv^cnv.  . . . ;  especially  xi.  17—24:  and 

vs.  25  :  "I  will  not  leave  you  in  ignorance, with  regard  to 

this  mystery,  in  order  that  ye  may  not  be  wise  in  your  own  con- 
ceit, that  a  blindness  in  part  has  happened  to  Israel  until  the 
fulness  of  the  Gentiles  shall  have  come  in,"  etc.  The  Apostle 
speaks  thus,  prevailingly  at  least,  to  Gentile  Christians,  yet  he 
likewise  has  in  view  Jewish  Christians,  and  to  the  Gentile 
Christians  he  speaks  chiefly  with  reference  to  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians (cf.  esp.  ch.  xi.,  also  ch.  xiv.),  to  the  Jewish  Christians 
with  reference  to  the  Gentile  Christians  (cf.  ii.  1,  14-16,  25; 
iii.  29-31).  The  Apostle,  therefore,  undoubtedly  presupposes 
a  mixed  community,  yet  a  mixed  community  in  which  the  basis 
is  Gentile  Christian.  That  between  the  two  parts  there  was 
not  wanting  variance  and  collision  is  indisputably  clear  from 
xi.  17-24  and  xiv.  If  we  hold  to  this  view,  we  understand 
also,  why  the  Apostle  in  his  parenetical  part  makes  prominent 
those  Christian  duties  that  relate  to  mutual  modesty  and  peace- 
ableness  (xii.  3  f.,  9-21),  to  the  indulgence  of  the  conscience 
and  the  convictions  of  others  (xiv.).  Also,  the  inculcation  of 
duties  towards  Gentile  magistracy  (xiii.  1-7)  belongs  just  here, 
in  as  far  as  subjection  to  human  authority,  which  is  at  the  same 
time  a  divinely  ordained  authority,  is  likewse  the  part  of  Chris- 
tian moderation  and  love,  which  for  conscience  sake  and  from 
the  heart  give  to  every  one  his  own.  How,  now,  is  what  we 
have  said  with  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  readers  and  with 
reference  to  the  drift  of  the  parenetic  part  related  to  the  theme 
of  the  Epistle  (i.  16,  17)  ?  As  in  the  theme  the  universalism 
of  the  Gospel  and  the  equality  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  supposed 
therein  has  been  laid  down  as  a  proposition,  so  in  chapters  xii.- 
xiv.  the  duties  that  result  from  this  proposition  are  brought 
home  to  the  hearts  of  the  Roman  Christians  —  mutual  forbear- 
How  is  the  ance,  love,  and  esteem.  3)  How,  now,  is  the  doctrinal  part 
par^r dated  related  as  well  to  the  theme  as  to  the  parenetic  part  ?  With- 
g^eJJ^jP'^'''    out  going  more  particularly  into  the  coui'se  of  thought,  it  is  to 


INTENTION   OF  DOCTRINAL  WRITINGS.  315 

be  observed,  as  is  generally  acknowledged,  that  in  chapters  i. 
and  ii.  is  exhibited  the  sinfulness  of  Gentiles  and  Jews,  and  in 
the  conclusion  of  chapter  iii.,  the  universal  sinfulness,  which 
renders  a  legal  justification  impossible,  and  only  justification  of 
grace  through  faith  possible.  After,  then,  in  chapter  iv.  it  is 
proved  that  this  justification  through  faith  is  taught  already  in 
the  Old  Testament,  the  blessing  of  this  justification  through 
faith  is  exhibited  and  a  false  practical  consequence  warded 
o£E  (vi.).  Finally,  in  chapter  vii.  the  impossibiliiy  of  justifi- 
cation through  the  law  is  shown  from  the  religious  experience, 
and  in  chapter  viii.,  likewise,  from  the  religious  experience  the 
reality  and  the  glory  of  justification  of  grace  is  shown.  In  this 
part  (i.-viii.)  everything,  therefore,  moves  around  the  jus- 
tification of  Jews  and  Gentiles  through  faith,  and  the  elabora- 
tion of  the  theme  is  unmistakably  accomplished  chiefly  from 
the  side  of  the  relation  of  these  to  God.  The  relation 
of  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  each  other,  as  it  forms  in  particular 
the  contents  of  the  parenetic  part  is  no  longer  prominent. 
What,  now,  is  to  be  said  of  the  second  principal  part  (ix.-xi.)  ? 
According  to  the  older  view  it  is  a  mere  appendix ;  according  to 
BaUr  it  contains  just  the  principal  matter.  It  is  undisputed, 
that  Paul  here  treats  the  question,  how  it  is  to  be  explained 
that  the  chosen  people,  the  Jews,  seem  excluded  from  the 
Messianic  salvation.  The  Apostle  comes  to  the  conclusion 
a)  that  a  remnant  of  the  people  of  Israel  is  yet  favored,  and 
P)  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  is  only  a  means  to  the  general 
favoring  of  Israel,  and  hence  of  humanity.  This  result  shows 
that  the  unconditioned  grace,  as  Paul  proclaims  it,  is  also 
universal  grace,  and  this,  in  turn,  confirms  the  theme  laid  down 
in  i.  16,  17;  and  treating,  as  it  does,  of  the  removal  of  the 
opposition  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  between  those  under 
the  law  and  those  without  the  law,  the  result  of  chapters 
ix.-xi.  stands  also  in  connection  with  the  intention  of  the 
parenetic  part.  Everything,  accordingly,  seems  to  conspire 
.  with  the  view  that  the  fundamental  thought  of  the  Epistle  is 
the  miiversality  of  the  Gospel  of   justification  through  faith. 


316  SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE  INTERPRETER. 

Organism  This,  however,  must  still  be  confirmed  4)  through  the 
thoughts,  organism  of  the  thoughts.  This  can  be  here  given  only  with 
the  greatest  possible  brevity.  God's  righteousness  through  faith 
for  all  ('lovSato)  T€  7rpu)Tov  kol  "EXXtjvl),  this  is  the  thought  of 
the  theme  which  concludes  the  prooemium  and  leads  to  the 
discussion.  This  thought,  now,  is  first  of  all  established  e 
contrario  (vs.  18  ff.  yap)  through  the  fact  of  the  unrighteous- 
ness of  men ;  first  of  all  of  the  Gentiles,  whose  sensualizing  of 
the  original  revelations  of  God  has  led  to  all  sins  and  unnatural 
lusts.  But  the  Jews  also,  though  not  without  the  law  and 
■  the  correct  idea  of  God,  belie  their  better  knowledge  through 
their  action;  and  the  former  cannot  justify  them  where  the 
latter  is  wanting.  The  Jews,  indeed,  have  a  great  advantage, 
which  as  a  truth  of  God  cannot  be  destroyed  by  the  falsehood 
of  men ;  yet  this  advantage  is  by  no  means  such  that  we 
(Jews)  can  make  it  a  matter  of  self -congratulation,  forasmuch 
as  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,  nay,  all,  are  under  the  power 
of  sin  (iii.  9),  and  through  the  law  no  man  can  be  justified, 
because  the  law  only  makes  men  conscious  of  sins,  but  cannot 
remove  them.  To  this  universalism  of  sin  (iii.  23)  is  now 
opposed  the  universalism  of  grace  (vs.  24  ff.),  and  hence  justi- 
fication by  faith  (vs.  28).  But  where  justification  by  faith 
comes  in  there  the  o^^position  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  is. 
removed  (vs.  29,  30).  Here  ends  the  first  unfolding,  based  on 
the  fact  of  the  universal  sinfulness.  But  the  proposition  of 
justification  by  faith  may  find  support,  indeed,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  is  confirmed  through  the  example  of  Abraham, 
who  was  justified  through  faith,  and  together  with  his  seed,  viz. 
those  related  to  him  through  faith,  has  become  partaker  of  the 
promise  ;  a  pattern  for  all  who  believe  as  Abraham.  After, 
now,  justification  has  been  represented  as  necessary,  it  is  rep- 
resented in  chapter  v.  f.  as  exceedingly  beneficent.  This  bless- 
ing consists  first  of  all  in  peace  with  God  and  in  everything 
that  depends  on  this,  particularly  in  the  consciousness  of 
victory,  which  is  expressed  in  an  argumentum  a  minori  ad 
majus :  "  if  justified  as  sinners:  much  more  having  been  justified 


INTENTION   OF  DOCTRINAL  WRITINGS.  317 

are  we  saved ! "  But  just  because  salvation  of  grace  is  a 
triumphant  salvation,  this  triumph  is  represented  also  in  the 
history  of  humanity ;  for  universal  as  the  Adamic  sin  and  its 
consequence,  death,  have  become,  the  StKatoo-wry  and  the  ^wt} 
that  Christ  brings  have  become  still  more  powerful  (v.  12-21). 
Yet  this  consciousness  must  not  make  us  frivolous  and  con- 
firm us  in  sin,  since  the  state  of  grace  is  a  communion  with  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  yea,  an  impulse  to  a  new  life 
of  righteousness  (chap.  vi.).  But  after  a  digressive  argument  Psvcliolo^i. 
from  analogy  the  most  important  thing  still  remains,  viz.  to  ment.^'^" 
show  psychologically  the  incapacity  of  the  Law  to  justify  and 
the  efficacy  of  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  (vii.  7  ff.  and  viii.), 
which  proof  —  carried  throi^gh  by  means  of  the  dialectic  an- 
tithesis (vs.  17-30)  —  can  only  discharge  itself  in  the  ti'ium- 
phant  consciousness  (vs.  31-39).  But  the  more  exultant  this 
joy,  if  the  Apostle  considers  it  purely  according  to  its  religious 
relation,  so  much  the  more  painful  is  the  thought  that  his 
fellow-countrymen,  so  richly  blessed  from  of  old,  should  be 
excluded  from  salvation  in  Christ !  Hence  the  problem,  to 
remove  this  crying  contradiction  of  God's  promise  as  well  as 
of  the  idea  of  the  Christian  salvation  (chaps,  ix.-xi.).  This 
he  solves  by  first  of  all  repelling  with  confidence  all  claim  to 
salvation,  and  representing  this  as  purely  a  matter  of  grace 
(ix.  6-19)  ;  then  by  exhibiting  the  exclusion  of  the  Jews  as 
their  own  fault  (ix.  30  to  x.  21),  and  finally  by  showing  that 
this  exclusion  is  not  total,  since,  rather,' as  in  the  times  of  Elias, 
God  has  reserved  to  himself  a  holy  remnant ;  and  not  final, 
since,  rather,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  is  to  exercise  a  retro- 
active influence  upon  the  Jews,  and  at  last  Israel,  as  a  whole, 
shall  be  saved.  This  is  in  general  the  mystery  of  the  divine 
counsel:  the  universality  of  grace  brought  about  through  the 
opposite  (xi.  32-3 G).  From  this  immeasurably  consoling  and 
exalting  thbught,  only  the  feeling  of  thankfulness,  as  the  prin- 
ciple of  all  religious  life,  can  form  the  transition  ;  to  which  are 
added  then,  exhortations  to  the  virtues  of  modesty,  love,  and 
peaceableness,  as  to  the  truly  catholic  or  social  virtues,  first  of 
27* 


818  SINGLE  OPERATIONS  OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

all  in  the  relation  of  believers  among  themselves  (chap,  xii.)  ; 
then  in  relation  to  Gentile  magistracy  and  to  men  in  general 
(chap,  xiii.)  ;  and,  jQnallj,  in  relation  to  freedom  of  thought,  to 
the  anxious  in  particular,  where  mutual  respect  and  forbearance 
with  regard 'to  the  convictions  of  others  is  a  Christian  duty 
Conclusion,  (chap.  xiv.).  Throughout  the  entire  Epistle  is  exhibited,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  idea  of  salvation  of  grace  ;  on  the  other 
hand,  the  idea  of  the  universality  of  salvation.  The  two  ideas 
actually  meet  in  the  theme  laid  down  (i.  16, 17)  :  "  The  Gospel 
of  justification  through  faith  as  a'  Gospel  for  all." 

91.   Intention  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

No  state-  An  example  of  another  kind  is  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 

intention.  Here  there  is  no  prooemium  at  all,  and  just  as  little  an  ex- 
planation, on  the  part  of  the  author,  of  the  object  of  his  writing. 
Teaching  of  He  rather  proceeds  immediately  in  mediam  rem.  We  must, 
esis.  *  therefore,  hold  ourselves  first  of  all  to  the  parenetic  part 
(chap.  xii.  f.).  But  this  disjjlays  the  very  explicit  drift,  to 
inculcate  constancy  {vTrofxovrj) ,  —  not  in  opposition  to  fickleness, 
but  in  oi3position  to  confusion  with  regard  to  salvation,  against 
the  forfeiting  of  the  same,  cf.  esp.  xii.  1,  4ff. ;  xv.  f . ;  also  x. 
35,  3G.  We  must  have  in  mind  at  the  same  time  the  peculiar 
idea  of  the  ttlo-tls  as  it  is  ex  professo  wrought  out  in  chapter  xi., 
as  the  holding  fast  to  the  end  hoped  for  but  invisible  and 
opposed  to  the  present  reality,  cf.  besides  the  theme  (vs.  1),  in 
particular  the  examples  vs.  8-10,  17-19,  24-26.  These  and 
the  reflection  vs.  13  f.  make  it  clear  that  the  Trto-Tts,  with  the 
author,  has  some  relation  to  the  viroiiovr] :  the  same  direction 
to  the  future  salvation,  only  that  in  the  Trtcrri?  it  has  its  seat 
more  in  the  thought,  in  vTrofiovi^  more  in  the  will.  But  what 
cause  has  the  author  to  inculcate  the  viro/xov^  upon  his  readers, 
and  to  bring  the  Trto-Tts  before  their  consciences  just  in  this 
aspect  ?  On  these  matters  partly  the  parenetic  part,  and  partly 
the  doctrinal  contents  of  the  Epistle  give  us  information.  In 
the  exhortations  allusion  is  made  to  a  battle  of  adversity  which 
the  readers  have  to  maintain,  and  which  might  easily  discourage 
them    (xii.  1-3,  4-8;  xiii.  13,  14).     Yet   they  must   already 


INTENTION   OF   DOCTRINAL   WRITINGS.    '  819 

heretofore  have  endured  affliction  (x.  32,  33).  To  these  relate 
the  encouragements  in  which  the  Epistle  abounds.  On  the  Doctrinal 
other  band,  we  are  directed  to  the  doctrinal  and  discursive  sive sections 
sections,  whose  specific  contents  must  relate  to  the  religious 
condition  of  the  readers.  The  author  speaks  of  the  advantage 
of  the  Christian  revelation  over  the  Old  Testament  revelation 
(i.  1-3  ;  ii.  1-4 ;  coll.  3,  1  ff.)  j  of  the  new  covenant  over  the 
old  (viii.  1-10  ;  x.)  ;  of  the  new  sanctuary  (ix.  1-10  ;  x.  1-10)  ; 
of  the  new  Mediator  or  High-Priest  over  the  old  (iv.  14- v.  10, 
particularly  vii.  and  viii.  1  ff.)  ;  as,  also,  of  the  great  advantage 
of  the  New  Testament  sacrifice  over  the  old  (ix.  11-28;  x. 
1 1  ff.) .  The  f undamejital  doctrinal  thought  is,  therefore,  the  Fundamen- 
advantage  of  the  New  Testament  order  of  salvation  over  that  al  thought. 
of  the  Old  Testament.  On  this  are  based  the  warnings  against 
holding  the  former  in  little  esteem,  ii.  1-4;  iii.  7ff. ;  iv.  1-13; 
X.  18-30,  35;  xii.  18-29.  We  are  therefore  to  suppose  that 
these  Hebrew  Christians,  partly  through  the  persecutions  which 
contradicted  their  expectation  of  salvation,  were  in  danger  of 
going  astray  in  the  faith,  partly  on  account  of  their  Judaizing 
stand-point,  had  no  right  insight  into  the  Christian  economy  of 
salvation,  but  were  inclined  to  regard  the  Old  Testament  order 
of  salvation  as  sufficient  But  an  obscurity  still  remains. 
Were  these  Jewish  Christians  actually  in  danger  of  apostasy, 
as  vi.  4-6,  X.  26 f.,  and  xii.  16f.  give  us  to  understand;  or 
had  they  merely  taken  a  stationary  position  on  their  elementary 
stand-point,  instead  of  advancing,  as  appears  from  v.  11-vL  3? 
It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  author,  to  this  animadversion 
against  their  stationary  position,  immediately  adds  the  earnest, 
yea,  terrific  warning  against  apostasy,  as  something  irrepara- 
ble, vi.  4ff.  But  just  in  this  difficulty  lies  the  key  to  its 
solution.  Forasmuch  as  these  Hebrew  Christians  had  stopped 
in  the  elements,  which  were  most  closely  allied  to  their 
Jewish  opinions  and  customs,  they  were  actually  in  danger  of 
regarding  their  Judaism  as  the  essential  thing,  and  of  letting 
go  just  the  specific  part  of  Christian  truth  ;  and  this  specific 
part   in  which  they  were  perplexed   must   have  been  partly 


820         SINGLE  OPERATIONS  OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 

Christ's  divine  dignity  (chap,  i.),  partly  his  sujffering  and  death, 
which  lie  precisely  at  the  basis  of  his  high-priestly  office  (ii.  17, 
Conclusion.  18;  iv.  14-16;  vii.  al.).  Thus,  from  the  parenetic  part  — 
insisting  on  the  vTrojxovj]  —  and  from  the  exhibition  of  the 
advantage  of  the  New  Testament  order  of  salvation  over  that 
of  the  Old  Testament,  is  won  a  picture  of  the  readers,  and 
from  this  an  insight  into  the  occasion  and  object  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  viz.  to  exhort  the  Hebrew  Christians,  who  in 
part  had  remained  behind,  in  part  had  become  perplexed  with 
regard  to  the  nature  of  Christianity,  to  steadfast  faith  in 
salvation  in  Christ. 

92.    Intention  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John. 

Character-  A  difficult  task  is  the  determining  of  the  intention  and  the 
EpfsUe.  ^  organism  of  thought  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John.  The  dif- 
ficulty consists  in  the  fact  that  this  Epistle,  so  inward  and 
heart-felt,  shows  no  progress  of  thought,  but  seems  to  lose 
itself  in  continual  repetitions.  Hence  the  object  and  the 
course  of  thought  have  been  defined  in  the  most  various  ways ; 
cf.  esp.  RicMi,  Johannis  erster  Brief,  erkliirt  und  angewendet 
in  Predigten,  Luzern  1828.  J.  Stockmeyer,  Die  Struktur  des 
ersten  Johannesbrief,  Basel  1873.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to 
discuss  here  the  different  views  of  the  matter,  but  merely  to 
exhibit  the  application  of  the  method  indicated  (§  89)  to  the 
Dops  the  concrete  case  of  this  Epistle.  a)  Does  the  author  give  any- 
Lis object?  where  an  intimation  of  the  object  of  his  Epistle?  This  must 
be  found  chiefly  in  the  introduction  or  in  the  conclusion.  In 
fact  the  words  (i.  3,  4)  "  What  we  have  seen  and  heard  this 
also  we  declare,  Iva  koI  v/Aet?  KOLViavtav  e)(7]T€  fJieO  rjfxwv  .  .  .  Kat 
Tavra  'YpoL<f>o[X€V  v[x7v,  Iva  rj  x^P^  v/xiov  y  TreTrAr^pto/xec^Ty,"  contain 
the  intention  of  the  author.  It  is  thus  the  joy  fulness  in 
Christian  communion  tliat  he  wishes  to  bring  about  by  his 
writhig.  Cf.  with  this  the  words  with  which  the  conchision 
begins    (v.  1 3)  :    Tavra    typaxpa  vjxZv,   Iva  ci8i7Te    on  ^(07)1/  9(^t€ 

alwvLov This  consciousness  of  having  eternal  life  is   ])vq- 

cisely  the  x'^P^-     ■^^'^^^  ^^^*   general  statement  requires  to   be 
made  more  definite,  and  this  is  done         /3)  in  the  intimations 


INTENTION   OF   DOCTRINAL   WRITINGS.  321 

which  the  author  gives  with  reg-ard   to  his  readers.     In  this  intimations 

*  ®  .  with  regard 

Epistle,  however,  uo  didactic  and    pareiietic    parts  are  to  be  to  the 

.  .  ,  '  ,      readers. 

distinguished ;  rather  the  whole  Epistle  is  parenetic,  and  the 
didactic  thoughts  that  are  strewn  here  and  there  are  partly 
reminders  of  the  evangelical  preaching,  as  i.  5 ;  ii.  7  f.,  18,  20, 
21  ;  iii.  o,  11  ;  v.  18  f.,  partly  foundations  for  consolatory  and 
exhortatory  pareneses,  as  ii.  1,  2,  17,  18-20,  27;  iii.  2,  7  ff. ; 
iv.  2  f.,  7-10  ;  V.  1,  6-8.  Yet  there  are  not  wanting  intimations 
as  to  the  condition  of  the  readers.  From  these  we  gather, 
that  they  were  in  danger  from  heretical  teachers  and  seducers, 
ii.  18  ff.,  26  f. ;  iii.  7  ff. ;  iv.  1-5.  That  these  heretical  teachers 
denied  the  divine  sonship  of  Jesus,  and  Christ's  manifestation 
in  the  flesh,  is  certain  from  ii.  22  and  iv.  1-3.  They  must 
thus  have  been  Docetae,  who  had  already  sought  to  spread  the 
Gnostic  distinction  between  Jesus  and  the  avw  Xptcrros,  and 
this  under  the  pretence  of  a  higher  knowledge,  against  which 
the  readers  are  armed  through  the  remembrance  of  the  y^picrixa. 
dwelling  in  them  (ii.  20,  27),  and  by  the  fact  that  they  are  in 
possession  of  the  truth  and  of  the  divine  life  (ii.  12  ff. ;  iii.  1  f., 
7f.,  14;  iv.  4f.;  v.  1  ff.,  18-20).  But  the  readers  seem  to 
have  been  subjected  to  still  another,  viz.  a  moral,  danger,  an 
antinomian  laxity  and  self-deception  (i.  6,  8;  ii.  1,  4;  v.  18) 
and  a  cooling  of  their  love  (ii.  9;  iii.  10-12,  18;  iv.  7  ff.,  20, 
21).  According  to  v.  21  this  antinomian-  tendency  seems  to 
have  brought  with  itself  a  certain  laxity  with  regard  to  the 
heathen  worship.  But  whether  this  antinomianism  was  con- 
nected with  the  Gnosticizing  heresy  of  the  avTV)(pL(TToi  is  not 
clear  from  the  Epistle ;  but  so  much  the  more  certain  is  the 
emphasis  which  the  author  puts  upon  the  fact  that  he  that  is 
born  of  God  sins  not,  but  keeps  himself  pure  from  the  world 
(i.  7;  ii.  15-17;  iii.  3,  4,  9,  10;  v.  18),  and  loves  his  brother 
(ii.  9,  10  ;  iii.  10-12,  14,  15  ;  iv.  7-21).  y)  How,  now,  the  Develop. 
author's  object  expressed  in  i.  3,  4  coll.  v.  13  is  confirmed  in  thoughts, 
the  development  of  his  thouglits  !  To  bring  about  "  joyfulness 
in  communion  with  God  and  with  the  children  of  God,"  is  thus 
the  author's  object.     The  whole  Epistle  now  is  occupied  with 


322  SINGLE   0PLRATI0N3   OF   THE   IN'TEEPRETER. 

the  conditions  to  this  joyfulness  in  God;  this  is  not  wrought 
out,  however,  with  logical  consequence,  but  in  such  a  way  that 
from  section  to  section  a  fundamental  thought  dominates, 
around  which  then  the  others  group.  Therefore,  also,  no  sharp 
transitions  occur,  but  the  thoughts  flow  over  into  each  other. 
First  part.  The  first  condition  to  that  joyfulness,  as  follows  from  God's 
nature  as  light,  is  moral  integrity ;  hence  in  this  first  part 
everything  moves  about  the  opposition  between  light  and  dark- 
Second  part,  ness  (i.  5-ii.  11).  In  the  second  part  (ii.  12-28)  two  warnings 
are  given  under  the  assumption  that  the  readers,  by  virtue  of 
their  position  under  grace,  have  overcome  the  evil  one :  not  to 
love  the  world  and  to  beware  of  the  heretical  teachers,  who 
sunder  the  man  Jesus  from  the  heavenly  Christ,  —  a  self- 
Third  part,  preservation  that  is  rendered  possible  by  the  ^^pCaixa.  In  the 
third  part,  to  which  ii.  29  forms  the  transition,  the  filial  relation 
to  God  is  set  forth  as  a  ground  of  the  x^P^'  ^^^  ^^^®  discussion 
mores  now  about  the  opposition  between  children  of  God, 
whose  characteristic  is  iroulv  tyjv  BLKaLoa-vvrjv  =  brotherly  love, 
and  the  children  of  the  Devil,  whose  mark  is  iroulv  rr)v  d/xaprtav 
Fourth  part.  =  hatred  (ii.  29-iii.  11).  From  this  point  the  discourse  glides 
into  the  fourth  section,  which  begins  with  iv.  1.  The  passage  iii. 
19-24  seems  to  be  intended  as  a  conclusion  of  the  Epistle,  since 
here  already,  as  in  v.  13.ff.,  is  set  forth  the  x^P^  ^^  TrapprjcrLa, 
confidence  in  prayer,  which  is  conditioned  through  r-qpeiv  ras 
cVtoAcls.  But  now  the  danger  of  seduction  to  which  the 
readers  are  subjected  is  before  the  author's  soul,  and  tlie  work 
of  the  fourth  part  (iv.  1-v.  12)  is  to  impress  upon  their  hearts 
the  notes  of  the  Spirit  from  God.  This  is  so  treated  that  in 
chap.  iv.  1-13  the  two  notes  are  set  forth  —  faith  in  Christ  as 
having  appeared  in  the  flesh,  and  brotherly  love  as  the  reflex 
of  the  love  of  God  in  Christ,  and  thence  the  different  factors 
of  this  fundamental  thought  are  set  forth  in  a  free  manner,  so 
that  the  discourse  returns,  in  the  conclusion,  to  the  idea  of  the 
Trvevjxa,  true  and  genuine  (v.  6-12).  The  conclusion  finally 
marks  anew  the  object  of  the  Epistle,  but  with  an  amplification 
with  regard  to  confidence  in  prayer  (vs.  13-17),  and  with  some 


INTENTION   OF   HISTOPJCAL   WAITINGS.  323 

energizing  thoughts,  which  are  derived  from  the  intention  of 
the  Epistle.^ 

b)    Tlie  Intention  of  Historical   Writings. 

93.   Presuppositions. 
The  question  may  be  raised  whether  we  are  justified  in  Do  sacred 
ascribing  to  the  biblical  historians  an   object  ulterior   to  the  have  any 
statement  of  the  facts.     In  every  case  we  are  to  proceed  from  objects? 
the  supposition  that  the  author  means  to  give  history.     Only 
when   either  he   himself   gives    an   intimation  of  an  ulterior 
intention,  as  Luke  (i.  1-4),  and  the  fourth  Evangelist  (xx.  30, 
31),  or  when  his  writing  exhibits  peculiarities  that  are  explicable 
only  from  the  special  tendency  of  the  author,  are  we  authorized 
to  inquire  after  the  intention  of  his  writing.     But  where  neither 
of  these  is  the  case,  as  in  Mark,  this  is  not  allowable,  and  this 
designless  character  of  the  second  Gospel  is  confirmed  by  the 
well-known  testimony  of  Papias.(Euseb.  H.  E.  III.  39).     But  Somepecu- 
not  all  the  peculiarities  of  an  Evangelist,  for  example,  are  to  to  the* 
be  reckoned  to  the  account  of  his  intention,  but  many  of  them 
spring  rather  from  his  sources.     What  thoughtful  interpreter 
would,  e.g.,  ascribe  it  to  the  intention  of  the  author  that  Luke 
gives  a  long  section  (ix.  51-xviii.  14),  which  is  peculiar  to  him 
in  part  absolutely,  in  part  in  this  connection ;  that  the  Evan- 
gelist names  the  publican  that  was  called,  Matthew,  whom  both 
the  other  Synoptists  name  Levi  ?  etc.     But  then  we  meet  with 
not  a  few  peculiarities  with  regard  to  which   it   is   uncertain 
whether  the  author  has  found  them  in  his  (oral  or  written) 
sources,  or  whether  he  has  transformed  the  given  account  in 
the  interest  of  the   object  that   he  pursues.     Without  going 
into  particulars,  we  mention,  in  Matthew  the  primordial  polemics 
of  Jesus  against  the  Pharisees  (v.  20  fC),  in  Luke  the  many 
sections  and  touches  with  regard  to  Jesus's  compassionate  love 
towards  sinners   (particularly  vii.  37  ff. ;    xv. ;    xix.  1-10),  in 
Acts  the  statement  that  Paul  soon  after  his  conversion  journeyed 

1  The  essential  agreement  of  our  exposition  with  that  of  Stockmeyer 
(The  Structure  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John)  will  be  readily  observed. 


324         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE  INTERPRETER. 

from  Damascus  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  associated  with  the 
original  Apostles  (ix.  26  ff.).  et  al.  In  such  phenomena  some 
will  always  be  inclined  to  attribute  these  features  to  the 
*' tendency"  of  the  author,  while  others,  in  order  to  save  his 
historical  fidelity,  refer  these  features  to  his  (assured)  sources. 
A  presnmp-  Here  we  can  only  reject  the  presumption  that  sets  forth  one  or 

tiontobe  .  *^       "^     _  ^  ^ 

rejected.  the  other  view  as  a  made-out  case,  and  as  a  criterion  either  of 
tlie  "  scientific "  or  the  "  orthodox."  Nevertheless,  there  are 
yet  many  phenomena  that  indicate  a  peculiar  stand-point,  or  a 
definite  intention  on  the  part  of  the  historian.  Thus,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  but  that  such  passages  as  Luke  iv.  26,  27 ;  x. 
SOfF. ;  xvii.  15  f.  (the  Samaritans)  and  the  special  prominence 
given  to  the  mission  of  the  seventy,  point  to  the  Pauline 
uuiversalism,  and  such  expressions  as  Luke  xvii.  7-10  point 
to  the  specifically  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
The  more  accurate  exhibition  of  the  method  of  procedure  will 
be  furnished  by  two  examples. 

94,   Intention  of  Acts. 

Since    Schneckenburger's    writing    "  Ueber  den  Zweck  der 
Apostelgeschichte,"  1841,    and    Zeller's  writing:    "Die  Apos- 
telgoschichte  nach  ihrem  Inhalt  und  Ursprung  kritisch  unter- 
Actsof  the  sucht,"  1854,  this  book  (Acts)  has  been  the  subject  of  manifold 
much  dis-     discussions ;  some,  in  proportion  as  they  have  thought  that  a 
S».^   o       ^^  j.gjj  jgjj(.y "  must  be  recognized  in  the  book,  have  cast  doubt 
upon  the  historical  character,  or  at  least  the  historical  fidelity, 
of   the  author,  but  others,  in  the    same  degree  as  they  have 
sought  to  defend  this  historical  fidelity,  liave  been  inclined  to 
deny  a  definite  intention  of  the  book.     We  must  here  confine 
ourcelves  to  the  determination  of  the  general  point  of  view. 
Material  of  First  of  all,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  author  of  Acts 
drawn  from  drew  tlie  material  for  the  first  part  of  his  work  from  tradition, 
and  that,  too,  from  Petrine  tradition,  and    that    only  for    the 
second  part  (xvi.  If.)  could  he  have  used  Pauline  tradition,  and, 
indeed,  probably  for  Paul's  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  but  cer- 
tainly for  the  deportation  journey,  an  autoptic  source.     Now, 
60  far  as  the  author  holds  himself  to  his  sources  or  relates  what 


INTENTION   OF   HISTORICAL  WRITINGS.  325      . 

lie  himself  experienced  (as,  especially,  xxvii.)  we  are  not  to 
inquire  after  an  ulterior  intention,  but  his  historical  narrative 
is  ^o  be  accepted  simply  as  such.  But  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
many  of  his  statements  vary  from  the  authentic  history ;  if  in 
these  variations,  indeed,  a  certain  agreement  and  direction  is 
to  be  established,  then  we  may  be  assured  that  the  author  has 
combined  with  his  histoiical  narrative  a  certain  intention.  But  Cases  in 
on  what  is  the  view  based  that  the  book  of  Acts  deviates  in  intention  is 
many  points  from  the  authentic  history,  and  that  too,  in  part, 
consciously  ?  It  is  an  axiom  in  all  historical  investigation  that 
immediate  testimonies  for  a  fact  are  to  be  preferred  to  mediate. 
Now  there  are   at  our  command    immediate   testimonies  for  Paul's  own 

„  TT.  .iTPPiA  1     testimony 

some  important  facts  and  relations  in  the  liie  ot  the  Apostle  in  tiie  Epis- 
Paul,  in  particular  with  regard  to  his  relation  to  Peter  and  the  tians. 
other  original  Apostles  (Gal.  i.  17  ff. ;  ii.  entire).  From  these 
testimonies  it  chiefly  appears  that  Paul  was  absolutely  inde- 
pendent of  the  latter,  that  he  was  conscious  of  having  been 
called  by  God  to  be  an  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  i.  16;  ii. 
7,  9  ;  Rom.  i.  5),  that  he  himself,  when  he  sought  to  establish 
an  understanding  with  the  Jewish  Apostles,  yielded  nothing  to 
the  Judaistic  zealots,  that  as  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  he  main- 
tained his  conviction  and  his  right,  and  compelled  the  original 
Apostles  to  recognize  the  same  ;  that  he  vindicated  with  energy 
against  Peter  his  fundamental  and  vital  principle,  that  man  is 
not  justified  through  the  works  of  the  law,  but  through  faith 
(Gal.  ii.  11  to  the  end).  How,  now,  does  this  agree  with  the 
assertion  of  the  author  of  Acts,  that  it  was  Peter  who  inaugu- 
rated the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  (Acts  x.  and  xi.  1-18), 
that  at  the  Apostolic  convention,  at  which  precisely  the  ques- 
tion with  reference  to  the  chief  difference  between  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians  is  discussed,  Peter  is  not  only  the  principal 
speaker,  but  also  expresses  himself  altogether  in  a  Pauline  way 
(xv.  7-11);  that,  on  the  other  hand,  Paul  as  a  matter  of 
course,  turns  in  his  missionary  journeys  first  of  all  to  the  Jews, 
and  only  through  the  opposition  of  the  latter  is  driven  to  the 
Gentiles  (xiv.  1  ff. ;  xvii.  1-5,  esp.  xviii,  1-6  and  xxviii.  24-28), 
28 


S'2Q         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

that,  iu  order  to  conciliate  the  Jews,  he  circumcises  Timothy 
(xvi.  1-3),  that  he  subjects  himself  to  Jewish  observances 
(xviii.  18 ;  xxi.  20-2G)  ?  Some  of  these  differences  may  have 
flowed  from  traditional  sources,  Vv'hich  Luke  followed;  but 
most  of  them  point  to  an  intention,  and  nothing  confirms  this 
Acts  Side-  so  clearly  as  the  significant  conclusion  (xxviii.  24—28).  From 
I'a  Kline  mis-  all  this  it  follows,  that  the  author  combined  with  his  historical 
Gentiles,^  account  an  apologetic  object,  i.e.  a  defence  of  the  Pauline 
mission  to  the  Gentiles.  This  is  justified,  1)  by  showing 
that  Peter,  indeed,  had  already  inaugurated  the  mission  to  the 
Gentiles,  2)  by  proving  that  Paul  always  remained  true 
to  Judaism,  therefore  that  he  cannot  be  accused  of  apostasy 
from  his  paternal  religion,  and  chiefly,  3)  that  it  was 
simply  the  unbelief  and  the  opposition  of  the  Jews  that  forced 
him  to  go  to  the  Gentiles.^ 

95.   Intention  of  the  Gospel  Of  John. 

Another  example  is  the  Gospel  of  John ;  and  here  also  we 
have  the  phenomenon  that  some,  in  just  the  measure  in  which 
they  ascribe  a  definite  intention  to  the  writing,  deny  its  his- 
toj'ical  nature,  while  others,  in  proportion  as  they  maintain 
the  historical  character  of  the  book,  throw  the  "tendency"  into 
the  background.  With  no  writing  of  the  New  Testament  is 
it  so  necessary  as  with  this  so  extraordinarily  disputed  book, 
without  any  prepossession,  to  hold  rigidly  to  the  historical  and 
Author's      hermeneutical  rules.  1)  As  is  well-known,  the  author  gives 

oihis object  the  object  of  his  writing  (xx.  30,31)  in  the  words:  IIoAAa 
/Acv  ovv  Kotx  aXXa  a-qjxua  iTroirja-ev  6  'Ir](Tov<s  iviDTnov  twv  fxaOyjTOiv 
a  ovK  IdTLv  yeypa/xixiva  iv  rw  /3l(3Xl(d  tovtw  •  raCra  8k  yeypairraL 
Iva  7rL(7Tev(r7]T€  on  'It/ctovs  eorJi/  6  XpioTo?  6  vL)<i  tov  Oeov,  kol 
Iva  7rto-r€voi/T€s  ^ojt/v  €)(r]T€  iv  t<Z  ovofiaTi  avrov.  First  of  all, 
therefore,  lie  says,  that  he  meant  to  give  only  a  selection  of 
facts    ((ny/xcta).       Through    this    his    writing    is    distinguished 

1  This  entire  section  is  a  specimen  of  what  the  Germans  call  "  tendcn- 
tial"  criticism,  and  of  which  13aur  was  the  Cor>'phacns.  Sec,  per  contra, 
Hackett  on  the  passajies  referred  to  in  Acts,  and  Lifjhifoot  and  ElUcott  on 
those  in  Galatians.    -  Te. 


INTENTION   OF   HISTORICAL  WRITINGS.  327 

in  particular  from  that  of  Luke,  who  according  to   his  own 
assertion  (i.  3)  has  striven  for  completeness.     Now  with  regard 
to  the  statement  of  his  object,  this  does  not  appear  to  be  dif- 
ferent from  the  object  which  the  other  Evangelists  have  had 
in  view,  since  they  also,  even  if  they  do  not  expressly  say  it, 
have  designed  to  promote  'faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God. 
Thus  the  great  peculiarity  of  this  Gospel  is  not  exj^Wned  by 
the  author's   statement  of    his  object.     But   it  depends  upon 
what  the  Evangelist  understands  by  "  Son  of  God  "  and  "  faith 
in  the  Son  of  God."         2)  On  this  point  the  contents  of  the  Contentsof 
book  itself  must  instruct  us,  first  of  all         a)   the  prologue :  The  pro- 
over  against  the  two  traditions  and  opinions,  of  which  the  one  ^S"®' 
derives  Jesus  by  direct  propagation  from  David  and  Abraham 
(cf.  the  Genealogies  and  Rom.  i.  3),  the  other  makes  him  to 
have  been  begotten  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  our  Evangelist  rises 
to  a  higher  metaphysical  stand-point,  and  derives  Jesus  from 
the  divine  essence,  from  its  revelation ;  hence  an  ideal  divine 
origin  ;  while  according  to  Matthew,  and  particularly  according 
to  Luke,  it  is  a  physical.     For  this  the  well-known  Alexan- 
drine doctrine  of  the  Logos  was  at  his  command.    By  virtue  of 
this  ideal-divine  origin  Jesus  stands  over  against  all  men  as  the 
possessor  of  absolute  knowledge,  as  the  bringer  of  light  and 
life.    We  are  further  to  attend     /?)  to  the  discourses  of  Christ,  J^j^^^jry^ 
which  differ  very  much,  as  well  in  contents  as  in  form,  from 
those  of    the    Synoptics;    they  treat   not  of    the  kingdom  of 
Heaten,  its  nature,  its  progress,  of  the  conditions  and  hinder- 
ances  to  participation  therein,  but  of  the  person  of  Christ  and 
his  relation  to  the  Father,  of  what  he  can  give  and  be  to  men. 
In  relation  to  the  form,  they  are  not  popular  discourses  in  the 
classical  Oriental  manner  of  parables  and  aphorisms,  kit  dis- 
cussions with  a  dull  and    insusceptible  audience    that    cannot 
understand  him,  and  with  opponents  that  will   not.     But  he 
does  not  let  himself  down  at  all  to  them,  he  seeks  in  no  wise 
to  remove  their  misunderstanding,  but  rather  rises  over  against 
them  to  ever  higher  and  more  incomprehensible,  to  ever  more 
mystical  thoughts,  so  that  the  misunderstanding  and  the  cleft 


328.        SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

between  him  and  his  audience  becomes  always  greater,  yea,  not 
unfrequently  culminates  in  blind  rage  on  the  part  of  the  latter, 

Johannean  cf.  esp.  vi.  26-59;  viii.  30-59;  x.  24-39.  Observe  further 
y)  the  Johannean  idea  of  faith ;  even  this  appears  to  be  quite 
different  in  this  Gospel  from  that  of  the  other  three  Gospels, 
in  that  —  while  there  faith  is  spoken  of  almost  exclusively  in 
relation  to  his  saving  power  —  here  so  continually  he  demands 
faith  in  his  person.  Hence,  then,  "•  believing  in  him "  is  not 
only  coming  to  him  as  seeking  help,  neither  is  it  merely  seeking 
him  from  gratitude ;  both  these  are  rather  designated  as  insuf- 
ficent  (iv.  47,  48;  vi,  24-26).  That  mere  belief  for  the  sake 
of  miracles  is  an  imperfect  faith,  is  indeed  a  matter  of  course 
according  to  the  ideal  conception  of  this  Gospel,  cf.  ii.  23-25 ; 
iv.  48;  X.  38;  xiv.  11  ;  but  it  is  not  only  an  imperfect  faith, 
but  also  an  insincere  faith,  in  which  the  heart  remains  uncon- 
verted (ii.  23-25;  iii.  2,  3;  viii.  30  ff.).  To  believe  in  Jesus 
is  rather,  by  means  of  a  spiritual  relationship  with  him,  to  bo 
drawn  by  his  person,  by  his  light  and  life  (iii.  18-21  ;  iv.  14; 

The  Corel u-  vi.  37,  45,  46;  vii.  17;    x.  4,  5,  27).  8)    We    may  further 

sions  of  tho     ,  •  i  •      /^  i  t  •        i  •       i* 

two  parts  of  observe  —  smce  this  Gospel,  accorduig  to  its  doctrinal  contents, 
may  be  divided  into  two  parts,  into  the  representation  of  his 
relation  to  the  world,  which  goes  to  the  end  of  chap,  xii.,  and 
the  representation  of  his  relation  to  his  people,  which  ends  with 
chap.  xvii.  —  the  significant  conclusions  of  both  these  parts. 
The  first  part  ends  with  the  words :  . . .  eyw  i$  ifiavrov  ovk 
iXdkrjaa,  aXX  6  Trcyu-i/^a?  /xe  Trarr/p  auro?  fxoL  ivroXrjv  SeSojKev  tl 
ciTTO)  Kol  TL  XaX^crw  •  Kttt  oTSa  oTt  r]  ivToXrj  avrov  ^wrj-  atoji'io? 
eaTLv  '  a  ovv  AoAco  cytu,  Karoos  ctprjKev  jxol  6  Trarryp,  ovTOi'S  \aX(o. 
This  thought,  that  he  does  not  speak  and  act  of  liimself,  but 
of  commission  and  of  the  mind  of  the  Father,  is  the  principal 
thought  of  this  Gospel,  cf.  v.  19,  20;  vii.  17;  viii.  28.  The 
second  part  closes  with  the  following  words  of  the  departing 
prayer  :  koI  iyv^piaa  avTo2<;  to  ovofxd  aov,  Iva  r;  dyd-mq  y]v  rjyd- 
Trrja-ds  fie,  iv  avTo2<;  rj  Kayoi  iv  aurots.  Thus  also  here  his  work 
is  the  revelation  of  the  Father,  but  for  the  purpose  of  the 
inner  communion  of  his  people  witli  him  and,  through  him, 


INTENTION   OF   HISTORICAL  WRITINGS.  329 

with  the  Father.      Tliis  is  the  Jesus  of  our  Evangelist,  and 
this,  according  to  him,  is  tlie  meaning  of  believing  in  him,  and 
in  belief   having  eternal    life.     But  this  view  is  so  different 
from  the  traditional  one  that  it  needs  to  be  confirmed  to  the 
readers,  and  this  confirmation  is  also  given.     We  are  therefore 
3)   to  direct  our  attention  especially  to  this  attestation.  ^  No  AutWs^ 
New  Testament  writer  represents  himself  (i.e.  the  fiaOrjrrjs  ov 
ayd-n-a    6    "Ir)(Tov<;  or  the  fxaOrjTr}^  6  €7rt    to    a-rrjOos    tov  'Itjctov 
avaireawv)  in  equal  measure  as  one  accurately  informed,  as  one 
consecrated.    These  predicates,  indeed,  intimate  this  sufficiently. 
It  is  expressed  still  more  definitely  xix.  35  and  xxi.  24.    How- 
ever much  occurs  that  is  improbable  and  strange  in  this  Gospel,^ 
it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  this  Evangelist  knew  how  to  legit- 
imate his  claim  as  an  accurately  informed  man  through  many 
peculiar  traits  —  traits  that  make  the  impression  of  a  precious- 
remembrance,  i.  37  f. ;    xiii.  4  ff.,  23  ff. ;    traits    that   indicate 
eye-witness,  iv.  6ff.;  xi.  17ff.;  xii.  20-22  ;  xiii.  entire:  xviii. 
15,  16;   traits  in  which  the  Synoptic  tradition  is  to  be  cor- 
rected, iii  24  coll.    Mark  i.  14;   xi.    2    colL   Mark   xiv.  3  £f . 
(Luke  vii.  37  ff.)  ;  xiii.  1  and  xviii.  28  coll.  Matt.  xxvi.  17-20  ; 
Mark  xiv.  12  ff.;    Luke  xxii.  7  ff.,  15;  finally  xviii.  13  coll. 
Matt.  xxvi.  57  and  Parall.     Neither  are  we  to  overlook  those 
features  in  which  a  great  delicacy  (xi.  27 ;  xiii.  27-30),  and  a 
tenderness  of  feeling  just  as  great  (xi.  3,  21,  22;  xxi.  15  £E.), 
are  expressed.     All  this  points  to  the  intention  to  represent 
the  Christ  whom   he   paints    as    the    true   one,    authenticated 
through  accurate  knowledge  and  eye-witness.     But  we  are  to 
attend         4)  to  the  relation  in  which  the  Evangelist  represents  J^^a^^^<2.to 
himself  (and  Jesus)  to  Judaism :  He  makes  Jesus,  indeec^,  —  as 
does  no  other  Evangelist  —  during  three    years  to  attend  all 
high  feasts   in  Jerusalem;   but   it   is  very  peculiar   that   the 
hearers  are  designated  throughout  as  'lovSaro/.,  and  these  for 
the  most  part  as  stupid  opponents  of  Jesus ;  that  the  Mosaic 
iHeve  belong  obscurities,  as  iv.  51,  52;  vi.  16-21;  ix.  40;  xviii.  24,25 
coll.  13-17.    Improbabilities,  as  ii.  6;  iv.  43,  44;  vi.  64,  70;  viii.  58;  xvm. 
6.    Strange  sayings,  as  vii.  8 ;  xi.  6.    Surprising  retorts,  as  vii.  21-23;  xiii. 

33,  et  al. 

28* 


830         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OP  THE   INTERPRETER. 

law  is  designated,  so  to  speak,  as  something  foreign  (vii.  22 ; 
viii.  17;  x.  34;  xv.  25),  to  which  also  is  to  be  added  the 
peculiar  relation  in  which  6  aXXo<s  /xa^ryr^s  appears  to  Peter 
(xiii.  23-25  ;  xviii.  15,  16  ;  xx.  3-8  ;  xxi.  7,  20  f.)  Apparently 
he  represents  Peter  as  the  energetic  one,  the  "other  disciple" 
as  the  consecrated  one.  Ke  places  himself  outside  of  Judaism 
and  above  it,  showing  as  he  does  a  universalism  at  least  as 
decided  as  that  of  Paul  (iv.  21-24,  40-42  coll.  48 ;  x.  16  ;  xi. 
52;  xii.  20  f.;  xvii.  20  f.).  Yet  our  Evangelist  also  differs 
irom  Paul  through  his  whole  view  as  to  form' and  contents; 
since,  besides  the  single,  but  of  course  important,  passage  i.  17, 
there  breathes  throughout  another  spirit ;  we  call  attention  only 
to  the  very  important  idea,  so  fundamentally  different  in  the 
two,  of  ivToXrj  (cf.,  on  the  one  hand,.  Rom.  vii.  8-13  ;  Eph.  ii.  15, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  John  x.  18;  xii.  49,  50;  xiii.  34;  xv. 
Conclusion  10-12;  1  John  ii.  7  ;  iii.  23).     Hence  we  obtain  as  the  object 

as  to  object  .  ^i/-i  icti  icn-  iT-< 

and  inten-  and  niteution  of  the  Gospel  oi  John  the  loilowmg :  the  Evan- 
gelist does  homage  to  a  gnosis  which  stands  above  the  Judaistic- 
Pauline  opposition,  and  is  related  to  the  Alexandrine  theosophy,^ 
yet  in  such  a  way  that  this  is  raised  to  the  higher  Christian 
potency.  By  means  of  this  Christian  gnosis  he  means  to  rep- 
resent Jesus  to  his  readers  as  Son  of  God,  not  in  the  Jewish- 
Messianic  nor  in  the  physical,  but  in  the  ideal  sense,  as  the 
light  and  life  from  God,  and  he  designs  to  lead  the  readers  to 
faith  in  this  Son  of  God,  i.e.  to*  the  living  recognition  of  him ; 
and  in  order  to  be  able  to  do  this  rightly,  and  to  prove  this  Son 
of  God  to  be  the  genuine,  he  authenticates  himself  as  con- 
secrated and  accurately  informed. 

c)    The  Intention  of  the  Apocalypse. 

96.   General  View  of  Biblical  Prophecy. 

Otherwise  than  in  the  historical  writings  doubt  may  arise  in 
reference  to  prophetical  books,  and  particularly  the  Apocalypse, 
whether  we  are  here  to  inquire  after  an  intention  or  after  an 

1  This  is  admitted  by  few  conservative  scholars,  and  there  is  much  to  be 
gaid  per  contra.  —  Tr. 


tion. 


INTENTION  OF  THE   APOCALYPSE.  831 

object.  "An  object,"  it  may  be  said,  "presupposes  rational 
reflection';  but  this  is  precisely  the  opposite  of  inspiration, 
from  which  the  prophecy  has  proceeded.  To  seek  an  intention 
in  a  prophetical  book  is  nothing  else  than  to  lose  sight  of  the 
divine,  and  to  bring  the  human  into  undue  prominence."  But 
this  objection,  so  far  as  pro^Dhecy  in  general  is  concerned,  rests 
upon  a  misunderstanding  of  the  nature  of  prophecy,  —  and  as 
regards  the  Johannean  Apocalypse  in  particular,  upon  a  mis- 
understanding of  this  book  itself.  a)  The  biblical  prophecy.  Biblical  and 
as  all  proj^hecy,  has  of  course  proceeded  from  divine  inspiration,  prophecy 
but  is  distinguished  from  analogous  heathen  phenomena  pre-  g^*'^"suish- 
cisely  by  the  fact  that  it  is  not  ecstatic  and  unconscious,  but 
conscious.  Cf.  in  general  Oehler,  on  the  relation  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophecy  to  the  heathen  divination  (Gratulations- 
programm,  1861).  If,  then,  even  in  the  Christian  church 
ecstatic  prophecy  occurred,  and  the  ecstasy  was  regarded  by  the 
Montanists,  indeed,  as  essential  to  prophecy,  this  phenomenon 
and  opinion  has  been  rightly  regarded  by  the  church  as  abnormal. 
The  true  Israelitish  and  primitive  ChVistian  projDhecy  is  of 
another  kind ;  in  reference  to  the  latter,  expressions  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  (1  Cor.  xiv.)  are  clear  and  decisive,  distinguish- 
ing^ as  he  does,  between  precisely  the  ecstatic  glossolaly  and 
prophecy  as  conscious  and  considerate  discourse,  cf.  esp.  vs.  2—4, 
14ff.,  23-2o.  But  even  supposing  that  the  condition  of  the 
Beer  while  receiving  the  revelation  had  been  ecstatic  and  un- 
conscious, yet  the  conclusion  -would  be  inapplicable  to  the 
Apocalypse  as  a  writing,  inasmuch  as  the  Apocalyptic  designates 
indeed  his  inspired  condition  (i.  10;  iv.  2  :  ^j/  —  eyevofjirjv  iu 
'7rv€Vfx.aTi)  as  a  thing  of  the  past.  We  will  not  here  enter  more 
minutely  into  the  artistic  arrangement,  the  symbolical  numbers, 
etc.,  —  things  that  presuppose  rational  reflection,  fi)  Further-  Basis  of  bib- 
more,  biblical  prophecy  as  conscious,  and  not  least  that  of  our  ecy  in  c*^.n-" 
Apocalyptic,  rests  upon  a  consciousness  of  the  condition  of  the  of'*the"con- 
people  or  of  the  church.  This  is  so  certain  that  precisely  the  peopre?*^^^ 
most  of  the  biblical  prophecies  are  the  best  sources* for  the 
knowledge  of  the  Israelitish  history.     The  same,  also,  may  be 


332         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

maintained  with  regard  to  the  Johannean  Apocalypse  (see 
below).  On  these  conditions,  which  the  prophet  finds,  and  by 
which  he  is  moved,  the  prophetical  discourses  also  rest  as  their 
basis.  Now  and  then,  it  is  true,  they  go  to  remote  times,  yet 
always  to  such  as  lie  within  the  horizon  of  the  seer  and  stand  in 
Prophecy  connection  with  his  present.  A  new  temporal  development 
prediction  Called  forth  new  propJiecies,  cf.  Jer.  xxvi.  18-19  ;  Isa.  xliii.  18, 
t*i^)i"yut^"  19-  y)  Because,  finally,  all  prophecy,  even  though  divinely 
mcuicSion.  effected,  yea,  just  because  divinely  effected,  proceeds  from  the 
religious  consciousness  of  the  condition  of  the  present,  and  from 
the  divine  counsel  in  relation  thereto,  prophecy  had  never  merely 
the  meaning  of  a  prediction  and  was  never  directed  merely  to 
instruction,  but  always  mediately  or  immediately  to  a  practical 
end,  to  conversion,  to  exhortation  or  encouragement.  All  the 
prophetic  discourses  of  the  Old  Testament  have  such  an  aim, 
and  that  precisely  the  Johannean  Apocalypse  by  no  means 
least  has  such  an  end  in  view,  is  clear  not  only  from  the  seven 
epistles,  but  also  from  the  beginning  and  conclusion  of  the  book 
(cf.  i.  4—8  ;  xxii.  12  ff.).  But  this  practical  object  presupposes 
in  the  prophet  a  reference  to  his  readers  and  to  his  time  and 
the  time  standing  in  connection  therewith.  Hence  it  is  per- 
fectly justifiable,  yea,  necessary,  indeed,  to  the  understanding 
thereof,  to  search  for  the  object  or  the  intention  of  this  pro- 
phetic book.     Cf.  above  §  67  f. 

97.    Application  Of  the  Categories. 

Has  the  au-  a)  The  Jirst  question  here,  as  everywhere,  is :  Has  the  author 
cated  iiis  l\imself  anywhere  expressed  himself  with  reference  to  the 
intention  of  his  writing  ?  This  must  appear  either  in  the 
introduction  or  in  the  conclusion.  Now  a  particular  object  is 
given  in  neither  place,  but,  indeed,  a  significant  thought,  which 
we  may  regard  as  the  theme  of  the  whole  (i.  3)  /xaKotpios  6 
a.vayivu}<j Ktiiv  Kai  o1  d/couoi/Tes  tovs  X6yov<i  t^s  7rpo<firjTeLa<;  kol 
Tr]povvT€<;  TO.  iv  avrrj  yeypajxfxiva  ■  6  yap  Kaipos  tyyvg,  and  (vs.  7) 
*l8oi)  £p)(€Tat  /xcra  tCjv  v€<j>eX.u)v  Kal  oj//erat  avrbv  7ras  o<^^aXp.o5  .  . . 
That  is,  it  is  the  certainty  and  the  nearness  at  hand  of  the 
Paruusia  which,  as    the  fundamental   thought,  stands  at  the 


INTENTION  OF  THE   APOCALYPSE.  333 

head  of  the  book,  —  and  not  as  mere  theory,  but  as  a  thought 
of  powerful  practical  concern,  since  a  r-qpdv  of  the  proj^hetic 
word  is  inculcated.  The  certainty  of  this  word  is  so  much  the 
greater  from  being  revealed  through  divine  visions.  This 
fundamental  thought  now  is  also  confirmed  through  the  con- 
clusion of  the  book  (xxii.  12)  :  'iSov  ep^ofxai  raxv,  kol  6  fxiaOos 
fjiov  /xcT  i/xov  .  .  .  and  vs.  17  :  Kat  to  7rv€i)/xa  kol  tj  vvfKJiT}  Xeyov- 
oriv  •  ''lE,p)(ov.  KOL  6  aKovwv  ctTraro)  Ep;^ov  .  . .  and  finally  vs. 
20  :  AiyeL  6  ^apTvpoJv  ravra  Nat,  €p)(0[xaL  Ta-^v.  A/xrjv,  £px°" 
KvpL€  'Irja-ov.  The  fundamental  thought  of  the  book,  expressed 
alike  in  the  introduction  and  in  the  conclusion,  may  therefore 
be  embi-aced  in  the  words,  "^e  read?/,  for  the  Lord  is  coming'' 
Cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  42  ;  Luke  xii.  40.         yS)   But  what  could  have  Condition 

.,.,.,  ofthe 

caused  the  Apocalyptic  to  place  this  emphasis  on  the  iud^ment  church  in 

^      rx,,  .  .        ,       ,  ,  7..  /.    7  .         theauthor's 

trump  ?  This  question  leads  us  over  to  the  condition  oj  things  time, 
in  which  the  seer  lived ;  only  from,  this  is  the  character  of  the 
book  to  be  understood.  On  the  condition  of  affairs,  and 
especially  of  the  Christian  church,  the  Apocalyptic  gives  us 
unmistakable  information.  Cf.,  first  of  all,  vii.  9-14;  where 
an  innumerable  multitude  of  martyrs  from  all  nations  is  ad- 
duced, who  "  came  out  of  great  ^At'i/^ts "  and  "  have  washed 
their  robes  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb."  This  evidently  refers  Persecution 
to  a  great  persecution  of  Christians ;  and  it  appears  from  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  spoken  of,  that  the  impression  thereof  is 
still  tolerably  vivid.  What  persecution  ?  Cf.  xvii.,  esp.  vs. 
9-11,  coll.  18.  "  The  seven  heads  of  the  beasts  are  seven  hills, 
upon  which  the  woman  (the  iropvrj)  sits."  Here  by  Rome,  the  Kome. 
city  of  the  seven  hills  is  designated  as  clearly  as  possible,  of 
which  it  is  said  in  vs.  18  that  she  (the  woman,  "the  great 
city")  has  dominion  over  the  kings  of  the  earth.  Further 
(vs.  10),  "There  are  seven  kings;  five  of  them  have  fallen  Seven  kings 
(died),  one  is  (present),  the  other  is  not  yet  come,  and  when 
he  shall  have  come,  he  will  remain  a  short  time,"  etc.  The 
five  kings  are  evidently  five  Roman  emperors  {/SaaiXevs  of 
Roman  emperors  also  1  Tim.  ii.  2  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  17  ;  Joseph.  Bell. 
Jud.  V.  13,  6),  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Caligula,  Claudius,  Nero. 


334         SINGLE   OPERATIONS  OF  THE   INTERPRETER. 

The  one  who  now  is  can  only  be  Galba  —  and  the  one  still  to 
be  expected  and  to  remain  only  a  short  time,  can  only  be  Otho. 
Finally,  vs.  11  :  "And  the  beast  that  was  and  is  not  is  the 
The  beast,  eighth,  and  is  one  of  the  seven,  and  goes  into  destruction."  The 
beast  is,  therefore,  likewise  a  Roman  emperor,  "  that  was  and 
is  not,"  who  hence  must  belong  to  the  five  fallen  (dead)  ones. 
When,  then,  it  is  said  :  "  he  is  one  of  the  seven  "  (instead  of 
"one  of  the  five"),  it  seems  that  it  is  in  order  that  the  mys- 
terious '•  beast "  may  by  no  means  be  <lesignated  too  precisely. 
From  all  this  it  is  clear,  that  the  Tropvrj,  who  has  dominion  over 
the  kings  of  the  earth,  and  '•  is  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the 
saints"  (vs.  6),  is  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  heathen  world,  and 
the  beast  that  was  and  is  not,  and  is  one  of  the  seven,  is  no 
other  than  Nero.  But  how  in  this  case  can  it  be  said,  "  kol 
avT09  oySoo's  ecrrtv"?  As  the  eighth  it  would  seem  that  he 
must  be  Vitellius ;  but  because  he  is  at  the  same  time  one  of 
the  seven,  and  an  object  of  fear  and  abomination,  he  also  must 
Christian  be  Nero.  But  that  he  is  yet  designated  as  the  eighth  is  ex- 
as'to'^Nero.  plicable  from  a  notion  at  that  time  spread  in  the  Roman  em- 
pire, and  especially  in  Christian  circles,  that  Nero  was  not  dead, 
but  only  mortally  wounded,  but  had  been  healed  again  (cf.  xiii. 
3),  and  that  he  would  return  for  consternation  and  destruction. 
Cf.  on  this  expectation  Tacit.  Hist.  II.  8,  9  ;  Sueton.  Nero 
57 ;  Dio  Cass.  LXIV.  9  ;  Dio  Chrys.  Orat.  20.  So  great  was 
the  terror  of  Nero,  especially  among  the  Christians!  and  so 
deep  was  the  impression  of  the  Neronian  persecirtion  !  for  no 
other  can  be  meant  by  the  OXixpif;  ixeydXr),  chap.  vii.  14.  But  in 
chap.  xiii.  this  abominated  and  dreaded  OrjpLov  is  still  spoken  of, 
and  is  designated  in  vs.  18  by  the  mysterious  number  Q)()(S 
The  myste-  (x^s"')-  Of  all  explanations  of  this  number,  that  have  been 
berG66.  '  given  from  ancient  times  till  now,  only  those  have  claim  to 
consideration  which,  in  accordance  with  the  intimation  of  the 
author  himself  that  it  is  apiOfxas  avOpiL-Trov,  refer  this  to  a  person  ; 
and,  indeed,  there  are  only  two  explanations  that  can  come 
Solutions,  into  account,  viz.  either  Aartvos  or  Nepwi/.  The  first  explana- 
tion has  against  it,  that  it  must  in  that  case  be  AaTetvos,  because 


INTENTION   OF  THE   APOCALYPSE.  835 

only  this  form  gives  the  full  numerical  value  666.^  Yet  this 
would  be  no  insuperable  barrier,  inasmuch  as  this  extension  of 
the  penultimate  syllable  of  Roman  names  in  -inus  now  and 
then  occurs  in  the  Greek.  On  the  other  hand,  this  nomen 
gentilitium  does  not  seem  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  authentic 
observation  of  the  author,  that  it  is  the  "  number  of  a  man " 
(of  a  person).  The  following  explanation,  discovered  almost 
simultaneously  by  four  scholars,  commends  itself  much  better : 
Numerical  symbolics  (Ghematria)  was  an  art  practised  much  - 
by  the  Jews.  Now  the  Apocalyptic  thought  in  Hebrew,  as  he 
wrote  in  Greek.  So  the  number  is  exiolained  by  the  value  of 
the  Hebrew  letters  in  ^0|^  ",i^3 ;  viz.,  5  =  50  ;  ^  =  200  ;  i  =  6 ; 
3  =  50 ;  p  =  100  ;  t3  =  60 ;  ^  =  200,  sum  666.  The  correct- 
ness of  this  explanation  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  through  it 
at  the  same  time  the  old  reading  616  (x^O  — familiar  already 
to  Irenaeus  —  is  explained.  The  explanation  is  this  :  a  reader 
of  the  Apocalypse  who  already  knew  the  key  to  the  number, 
put  in  the  place  of  the  Greek  expression  Nepwv  the  Roman 
Nepw  (i'^:),  and  thus  the  number  came  out  50  less  =616. 
From  all  this  it  is  clear,  that  under  the  6\lkj/l<s  the  Neronian 
persecution,  under  the  iropv-r]  the  heathen  capital  of  the  world 
and  persecutor  of  the  Christians,  Rome,  and  under  tlie  O-qpwv 
Nero  is  to  be  understood.^  Against  the  latter  explanation.  Objection, 
especially  so  far  as  it  rests  on  xvii.  11,  it  is  objected  from 
the  "  orthodox  "  side ;  that  expectation  of  the  return  of  Nero" 
was  an  error,  and  according  to  this  explanation  the  author  of 
the  Apocalypse  would  have  participated  in  this  error,  which  it  is 
unsuitable  to  suppose.  But  the  claim  that  no  sort  of  errors  can 
occur  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  is  a  dogmatic  postulate,  and  such 
in  exegesis  —  as  first  of  all  a  historical  science  —  is  inadmissible. 
Not  infallibility,  but  plenitude  of  religious  spirit,  is  the  charac- 

1  AoTti/as  analyzed  into  its  letters  gives  the  numerical  value :  A  =  30, 
o'=  1,  T  =  300,  t'=  10,  »/'=  50,  o'=  70,  <t'=  200=661.  On  the  other  hand, 
AaTc7vo5  =  666,  because  «'=  5  is  added. 

2  After  all  that  has  been  wiitten  on  this  mysterious  passage  there  remains, 
and  must  remain,  much  doubt.  The  above  solutions  are  both  ingenious; 
but  this  is  the  most  that  can  be  said  of  them.  —  Tr. 


836         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OF   THE   INTERPRETER. 

teristic  of  Holy  Scripture,   the  Apocalyjyse  included.     If   we 

seek  to  realize  the   impression  which    these   events   and   the 

contemporaneous   Jewish  war,  together   with    the   impending 

destruction  of  Jerusalem,  including  the  temple  court  (xi.  2), 

must  have    made  upon  all  Jewish  Christian  hearts,  we   may 

The  con-      Understand  also  the  excited  tone  of  this  book.         7)   Let  us 
tents  of  the    -,  .  ,  ,  t,.  .  »,... 

prophecy.    lurther,  m  order  to  understand  the  mtention  of  this  writmg, 

make  clear  to  ourselves  the  prophecy  itself  in  its  principal 
,  features.  The  contents  thereof  relate,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
calamities  and  judgments  on  the  whole  olKovixeurj  and  in  quite 
a  special  way  on  "  the  great  Babylon,"  the  heathen  capital  and 
persecutor  of  the  saints  ;  on  the  other  hand,  to  the  consolation 
and  the  rescue  of  the  faithful.  It  is,  in  other  words,  the 
battle  between  the  divine  and  the  contra-divine  powers.  This 
battle  is  a  great  world-drama,  whose  periods  run  according  to 
the  sacred  number  seven  —  seven  seals  of  the  book  of  fate,  seven 
trumpets,  seven  vessels  of  wrath.  The  continually  recurring 
delay  of  the  final  catastrophe  is  peculiar, —  a  delay  to  which 
the  eschatological  discourses  of  Jesus  point  (Matt.  xxiv.  48 ; 
XXV.  5).  Not  only  do  the  loosing  of  the  seventh  seal  and  the 
'blast  of  the  seventh  trumpet  delay,  but  after  that  the  latter  has 
ensued  (xi.  15),  with  which,  according  to  x.  7  the  final  catas- 
trophe was  to  ensue,  the  really  decisive  battle  opens  first  with 
the  second  part  (from  xii.  onwards)  :  on  the  one  hand,  the 
Israelitish  commonalty,  which  brings  forth  the  Messiah,  and 
together  with  her  son  is  persecuted  by  the  dragon;  on  the 
other  hand,  the  dragon  and  the  anti-Christian  beast,  together 
with  the  false  prophet  —  then  the  great  Babel,  the  persecutor 
of  Christians.  After,  now,  the  plagues  and  ^Ati//ag  have 
passed  over  the  just,  the  penal  judgments  on  the  contra-divine 
powers  follow  (cf.  1  Pet.  iv.  17,  18),  viz.  first  of  all  on  the 
great  Babylon  (xvii.-xix.),  then  on  Satan,  the  anti-Christian 
beast,  and  the  pseudo-prophet  (xx.  1-3,  10).  These  terrific 
pictures  finally  vanish  behind  the  consolatory  and  glorious 
revelation  of  the  city  of  God,  the  new  Jerusalem  (xxi.  f.). 
These  prophetic  pictures  are  by  no  means  designed  merely  to 


INTENTION   OF  THE   APOCALYPSE.  337 

satisfy   the   religious    curiosity,  but   to   incite    the  readers  to 

watchfulness  and  steadfastness.     Now  this  brings  us  back,  in 

conclusion,         S)   to  the  special  practical  intention,  as  this  is 

brought  home  to  the  conscience  of  the  readers  powerfully  and 

effectually  in  the  seven  epistles^  (ii.  and  iii.).      What  is  the  Practical 

fundamental  drift  of   these  epistles  ?     However  different  the  manifested 

religious  condition  of  these  Asiatic  churches  may  have  been,  epistles. 

the   intention    of  all   these   epistles   is    one,  for  all  agree  in 

the  promise  to  him  that  overcometh.     To  the  church  at  Eph- 

esus  it  is  said  (ii.  7)  :  tw  vlku)vtl  Swcrw  avrw  (ftayiiv  Ik  tov  ^vXov 

T^s  ^tiJ^s,  o  IdTLV  iv  Tw  TrapaSetcra)  tov  Ocov  fj.ov ;  to  the  church 

at  Smyrna  (ii.  11)  :  6  vlkCjv  ov  /xrj  aSLK7]6^  Ik  tov  Oavdrov  tov 

Scvrepov;  to  the  church  at  Pergamos  (ii.  17)  :  tw  vlkij^vti  hoxiai 

avTu   TOV   fxdvva    tov    KeKpvfifiivov    k.  t.  X.  ;    to    the  church    at 

Thyatira  (ii.  26)  :  6  vlkiov  kol  6  Trjpwv  axpi  reXovs  to.  epya  fxovj 

Buxroi    avrw    l^ovatav    lirl    tcuv  IOvCjv  ;    to  the  church  at  Sardis 

(iii.  5)  :  6  vlkiov  ovTO<i  TrcpijSaXetrat  ev  t/xartots  XeuKots  k.  t.  X.  ;  to 

the  church    at  Philadelphia   (iii.  12)  :    6    vikojv    Trot-^cro)    avTov 

(TTvXov  iv  T<2  vaw  Tov  6eov  fxov  k.  t.  X. ;  and,  finally,  to  the  church 

at  Laodicaea  (iii.  21)  :  6  vlkojv  Swcrw  avT<2  KaOiaai  jxct  i/xov  Iv 

TO)  Opiovco  fxov,  a)s  Kayo)  IviKrjcra  kuX  iKauLcra  /xera  tov   Trarpos  fXov 

iv  TO)  Opwvio   avTov.     We  see :    upon  steadfast  overcoming^  in 

view  of  the  coming  calamity  and  judgment,  everything  depends. 

So  then  the  theme  found  just  at  the  beginning  of  the  book 

receives  its  explanation  and  confirmation  from  the  condition 

of  Christianity  at  the  time,  from  the  contents  of  the  visions,  and 

from  the  drift  of  the  exhortatory  parts. 

98.   Correlation  of  Induction  and  Deduction. 

The  ascertaining  of  the  intention  of  a  writinoj  is  for  him 
who  himself  will  for  the  first  time  arrive  at  an  understanding 
thereof,  and  to  this  end  has  to  apply  the  inductive  method, 
the  highest  and  the  last  thing.  But  for  him  who  has  to  bring 
about  an  understanding  in  others  the  deductive  method  is  to 
be  preferred,  and  he  will  proceed  from  the  intention  of  the 
writing  as  the  general  point  of  departure.     Yet  this  rule  is 

1  Cf.  Trench,  The  Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches,  —  Tft. 
29 


338         SINGLE   OPERATIONS   OP  THE  INTERPRETER. 
Method  for  subject  to  exceptions,       1)  for  the  investigator  himself,  where 

theinvesti-     ,        ,.  -    ,       .  .        .     ,.^      ,  -,    ^      -  •        .       i^ 

gator.  the  discovery  of  the  intention  is  dimcult  and  the  intention  itself 

is  uncertain,  and  hence  needs  confirmation  ever  again  through 

Method  for  an  exegesis  of  the  individual  parts  ;  2)  for  the  teacher,  where 
'  he  may  hope  that  in  the  long  and  difficult  processes  of  the 
induction  the  hearers  or  readers  will  follow  him.  In  any  case 
the  determination  of  the  object  of  a  writing  must  be  based 
upon  thorough  grammatical,  historical,  and  logical  explanation. 
Yet  for  success  not  only  conscientiousness  and  thoroughness  of 
exegetical  procedure  are  requisite,  but  also  the  capacity/  to 
throw  oneself  into  the  circle  of  thought  of  another,  to  think 
with  him  and  to  feel  with  him.  For  the  understanding  of  a 
sacred  writing  in  particular,  it  is  indispensable  that  we  should 
be  able  to  enter  into  the  religious  manner  of  thinking  and 
world  of  thought  of  the  biblical  author.  But  this  without  a 
religious  sense  of  his  own  on  the  part  of  the  interpreter  is 
impossible.  The.  third  part  of  our  work  is  to  treat  of  the  reli- 
gious sense  and  understanding. 


PART    III 


THE 


RELIGIOUS   UNDERSTANDING. 

I.  Preliminary  Remarks. 

The   religious   understanding    is    no   special   part   of    the 
interpretation.     We  cannot,  therefore,  treat  of  a  "  theological 
explanation  "  as  if  it  were  co-ordinate  with  the  grammatical, 
historical,  and  logical  explanations.     The  religious  understand-  riaco  of  re- 
ing  is  rather  beginning  and  end  of  biblical  exegesis :  heyinning,  deVstanding 

.  .  ,  ,.    .  .  .11  p  ^,,     .     •      .       in  Scripture 

for  without  a  religious  mterest  in  the  documents  of  Christianity  intorpreta- 
no  scientific  explanation  thereof,  that  deserves  the  name,  is 
thinkable.  There  may  be,  indeed,  a  grammatical,  a  logico- 
critical,  a  historico-antiquarian  occupation  with  Scripture,  which 
has  not  sprung  from  religious  interest,  and  such  occupation  is 
by  no  means  to  be  condemned,  since  the  results  thereof  are 
often  an  extremely  valuable  material  for  the  interpreter ;  but 
just  material,  and  not  interpretation  itself !  The  exegete  who, 
indeed,  must  himself  go  through  this  manifold  process  will  avail 
himself  thankfully  of  this  material,  but  simply  as  of  a  means  to 
the  end.  The  object  is  the  complete  understanding  of  the 
writing  and  of  the  author,  and  this  he  only  can  aim  at  who  has  a 
religious  interest  in  understanding  Scripture.  But  the  religious 
interest,  which  is  at  the  same  time  a  preliminary  understanding, 
is  to  be  regarded  not  only  as  the  beginning  and  incitement  to 
scientific  investigation,  but  also  as  the  result  and  summing  up 
of  the  investigation  itself.  After  the  writing  has  been  ex- 
pLiincd  in  detail  and  according  to  its  various  aspects,  all  this 

839 


340  RELIGIOUS   UKDERSTANDING. 

finds  its  conclusion  in  the  religious  understanding,  and  for  this 
bears  its  fruit.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  matter  of  dispute 
whether,  and  how  far,  the  religious  interest  is  to  accompany 

Two  views,  or  guide  the  exegetical  operations.  Here  the  views  of  theo- 
logians divide ;  it  may  be  said,  indeed,  that  just  here  the 
prevailing  theological  directions  come  most  of  all  to  their  ex- 
pression :  the  one  would  have  the  religious  interest  to  preside 

One  makes   in  the  whole  business  of  Scripture  interpretation  ;  for,  it  is  said, 

religious  in- 
terest para-  Scripture  is  designed  to  be  interpreted,  and  should  be  interpreted 
moimt.  .       ,  .  T     .         ,  .  1    .  .  ,       f^    .  .        ,  .  ,     . 

m  the  same  spirit  in  which  it  was  written,  the  ISpirit  which  in- 
spired the  sacred  authors  must  also  be  their  interpreter.     If, 
therefore,  the  grammatical,  the   historico-critical,  the    logical 
explanation  furnish  results  that  are  injurious  to  the  religious 
interest,  the  latter  is  to  put   its   veto  upon   them.     Should, 
therefore,  a  conflict  occur  between    the  scientific  explanation 
The  other     and  the  religious  interest,  the  latter  has  the  precedence.     The 
^mc(Jio'^^'  other   direction    claims,    on     the    contrary,    that  —  where    the 
grammar,     g^gg^QQ  (,f  science  arises  —  the  religious  interest  is  to  with- 
draw, and  at  least  not  mingle  with  the  investigation.     "  Mulier 
taceat  in  Ecclesia."     For  what  has  the  religious  interest  to  do 
with  the  questions  of  textual  criticism,  of  grammar,  and  lex- 
icology,  of   logical  connection,  of   history,  and  archaeology  ? 
Can   the  religious  consciousness  determine  whether  the  Cod. 
Alexandrinus  or  the  Cod.  Cantabrigensis  is  right,  whether  a 
on  is  telic  or  causal,  whether  a  relative  j^ronouu  refers  to  the 
last  substantive  or  the  next  to  the  last,  whether  Kvpioc  in  a 
certain    passage   refers    to    God    or    to    Christ,    whether    the 
linguistic  character  of  1  Timothy  allows  or  forbids  us  to  ascribe 
The  r?ii-      the  Epistle  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  etc.  ?     The  religious  and  the 
fdentitt"  in-  Scientific  interest  are  thus  to  be  kept  strictly  apart.     A  third 
iToirt  dib"    ^  view  would  not,  indeed,  have  the  scientific  interest  biased    by 
^^^^'  the  religious;  yet  the  religious  interest  should  not  be  excluded, 

but  should  also  have  a  word  to  say.  Many  questions  and  inves- 
tigations of  science,  indeed,  touch  the  religious  faith  not  in  the 
least ;  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  questions  that  cannot  be 
ignored  by  the  religious  interest.     But  if  it  should  be  asked, 


r?:ligious  interest  and  scripture  study.      341 

which  these  questions  are,  where  the  religious  interest    is  to 

step  in,  and  what  the  limits  are  beyond  which  faith  is  to  address 

to  the  scientific  investigation  a  "  thus  far  and  no  farther,"  the 

answers  will  be  very  various,  even  among  the  moderately  liberal, 

inasmuch  as  the  religious  interest  of   the  one  will  draw  the 

limits  of  free  inquiry  broader,  that  of  another,  narrower.     We 

see  that  the  "  religious  interest,"  in  as  far  as  it  claims  the  right 

to  interfere  with  the  material  of  the  exegetical  and  historico- 

critical  investigation,  is  something  very  indefinite,  and  that  it 

is,  for  the  most  part,  confounded  with  the  religious  conception. 

In  fact,  the  indefiniteness  and  complication  arise    from    such 

confounding,  and  from  the  way  and  manner  in  which  each  one 

translates  his  religious    need  into  the  language  of  conception 

and  of  understanding.     Clearness  can  only  be  brought  into 

the  matter  when  the  nature  of  the  religious  consciousness,  as 

well  in  relation  to  Scripture  as  to  the  scientific  study  thereof, 

is    more   accurately  defined.     The   religious  interest,   then,  is  Division  of 

1)  motive  to  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,         2)    it   becomes  "* 

objective  in  the  scientific  study  of  Scripture,  and  is,         3)  as 

the  fruit  of  both,  the  complete  theological    understanding  of 

Scripture. 

1.    The  Religious  Interest  as  Motive  to  Scripture 
Study.  ' 

2.   Universality  of  Religion  in  Humanity. 

Wlien  our  religious  consciousness,  as  Christians,  is  first 
awakened,  it  is  found,  as  a  rule,  in  connection  already  with  the 
Bible  as  the  sacred  book,  as  the  source  of  our  religious  knowl- 
edge. By  this  we  mean  that  our  religious  forebodings  and  feel- 
ings are  themselves  a  product  of  Scripture ;  and  it  is  true,  that 
when  we  begin  to  be  conscious  of  our  religious  forebodings  and 
feelings,  we  have  usually  already  an  idea  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  the  unconscious  precede  the  conscious  forebodings  and 
feelings,  and  the  former  is  antecedent  to  the  Scriptures.  Just 
as  the  sacred  writings  in  all  religions  and,  not  least  of  all  in  the 
Israelitish  and  Christian,  have  arisen  from  the  religious  spirit, 


29 


842  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

not  vice  versa  (cf.  above  I.  §  8f.),  so  in  a  normal  development 

of  the  individual  the  unconscious  religious  foreboding  precedes  all 

Religious     knowledj^e  of  Scripture.      The  religious  disposition  is  immanent 

di.-position  -,  ^  -,     >  ^      ■,  i  •   , 

immanent    in  the  human  soul/  and   if   there  are  savage  peoples,  which 

man  soul,  discover  no  trace  of  religion,  and  if  among  our  civilized  peoples 
there  are  thousands  who  seem  to  be  devoid  of  all  religion  and 
of  any  religious  need,  this  proves  nothing  against  the  above 

Objections  proposition,  for  1)  the  nature  of  a  species  (resp.  mankind) 
is  not  learned  from  the  most  imperfect  and  most  dwarfed 
specimens ;  2)  non-religion  in  civilized  peoples  and  educated 
individuals  arises  either  from  opposition  to  a  certain  form  of 
religion,  which  they  identify  with  the  essence  of  religion,  or 
there  is  actually  often  more  religion  in  such  individuals  than 
people  think,  or  they  themselves  are  conscious  of.  In  the 
former  case  it  is  by  no  means  proved  that  the  individuals  in 
question,  if  religion  had  been  presented  to  them  in  another 
form,  would  have  been  non-religious.  In  the  latter  case  a 
latent  religious  consciousness  may  manifest  itself  either  as  lively 
appreciation  of  nature  or  lively  appreciation  of  art,  or  as  moral 
feeling  or  the  feeling  of  justice.  In  these  forms,  then,  the 
religious  faculty  is  present  in  all  men  not  entirely  barbarous  or 
stunted,  and  this  is  more  original  than  any  belief  in  Scripture 
and  than  any  positive  religion,  as  the  most  enlightened  men  of 

Rom.  i.  19,  Christian  antiquity  saw,  cf .  Rom.  i.  1 9,  20,  ...to  yvwcrrbv  tov  Ogov 
<l>avcp6v  IcTTLv  Iv  avTOtq  •  6  ^€0S  yap  avrois  icfiavipoiCTev  •  ra  yap 
aopara  avTov  airo  KTLa€iD<;  Kocr/xov  rots  TroLrjiMacTLv  voov/x€va  kuOo- 
parat,  y  re  atStos  avrov  Svvajxi^  Koi  $eL6Tr]<s  .  .  .  and  ibid.  ii.  14,  15, 
otrtve?  ivheLKVvvTaL  to  epyov  tov  vofiov  yparrrov  iv  tols  KapStai?, 

Tertullian.  fTVjxfjiapTvpovaT]!;  avriov  Tr]<;  crwet8r;o-€(i>s  k.  t.  A.  CoU.  Tertull. 
De  Testimonio  Animae,  c.  5  :  "  Ilaec  testimonia  animae  quanto 
vera,  tanto  simplicia,  quanto  simplicia,  tanto  vulgaria,  quanto 
vulgaria,  tanto  communia,  quanto  communia,  tanto  naturalia, 

Clement  of  Quanto   naturalia,   tanto  divina.'*     Clem.  Alex.  Cohortatio  ad 

Alexandria   Qgj|t. :  rjv  Be  rts  efx<fiVT0<i  ap-)(aia  Trpos  ovpavov  dv6p(t)7roL<s  KOLvuivla^ 

1  The  best  discussion  of  this  subject  with  which  I  have  met  is  that  of 
Ulrici,  Leib  and  Seele,  688  ff.  —  Ta. 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST   AND   SCRIPTURE   STUDY.       343 

ayvoCa  fxkv  iaKOTurfxevrj,  acf>v(o  Bi  ttov  BuKOpoyaKovaa  rov  aKorovs 
Kol  dvaXd/jLTTovaa.  August.  Retract.  1,13:  Res  ipsa  quae  nunc 
Religio  Christiana  inincupatur,erat  apud  antiques  nee  defuit  ab 
initio  generis  humani,  quousque  Christus  veniret  in  earn  em, 
unde  vera  religio,  quae  jam  erat,  coepit  appellari  Christiana. 

3.    Development  of  Religious  Disposition. 

But  this  religious  disposition  would   remain  forever  unde- 
veloped, or  if  developed  or  awakened  dry  up  again,  if  it  should 
not  be  awakened,  developed,  and  fostered  by  those  in  whom 
religion  has  not  remained  mere  disposition,  but   has  become 
actual  religious  consciousness.     This  awakening  influence  is,  stages  of 
first  of  all,  living  men,  the  living  word  ;  not  written  documents,  vei'lpment 
In  the  Catholic  church  it  is  the  priests  and  confessors ;  in  the  uaia!  ^^^  ' 
Protestant  churches,  after  the  parents,  the  teachers  and  preachers. 
The  more  developed  and  awakened,  now,  the  religious  need,  the 
more  will  he  who  imparts  religion  appear  as  a  priest  of  God, 
and  —  in  case  he  is  actually  a  true  witness  of  God  —  his  words 
will  appear  as  the  words  of  God.     But  the  more  the  individual 
is  nourished  and  lilled  by  this  bearer  of  religion,  the  more  does 
he  himself  grow  to  religious  maturity,  and  in  the  measure  in 
which  this  happens  is  he  emancipated  from  priestly  authority ; 
he  comes  to  see  that  this,  however  enlightened,  is  still  a  human 
authority,  and  hence  can  no  longer  give  him  complete  satisfac- 
tion.    He   needs  a  more  immediate,  a  fuller   revelation ;    he 
feels  the  necessity  of  receiving  religion  at  first   hand.     Now 
this  first  hand  is  Holy  Scripture.     Whether,  now,  it  be  that  the  Supposed 
individual  —  as  is  normal  in  the  bosom  of  Protestantism  —  is  thl^view  of 
brought  to  the  Scriptures,  and  instructed  therein  from  childhood,  natliraiTo 
or  has,  first  at  a  later  period,  and  in  consequence  of  a  religious 
awakening,  come  to  the  knowledge  thereof,  in  either  case  he 
will   reverence   and   love   in   Scripture  the   divine  word,  the 
source  of  his  religious  life.     Yet  the  relation  of   the  two  to 
Scripture  is  different  in  form  ;  in  the  former  case  Scripture  is 
to  the  individual  in  the  first  instance  and  essentially  authority^ 
and  that,  too,  in  its  totality ;  it  is  so  by  virtue  of  its  historical 
sanction  as  given  absolutely  by  God.     In  the  second  instance. 


each. 


844  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

the  individual  having  arrived  at  religions  maturity  will  ex- 
perience also  in  himself  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  which  brings 
home  to  him  the  truth  and  power  of  certain  expressions  and 
passages.  But  on  this  he  will  lay  weight  only  in  as  far  as  this 
inner  witness  confirms  to  him  what  he  has  previously  believed 
on  authority,  and  in  no  wise  will  this  inner  witness,  which  of 
course  does  not  attest  each  and  every  thing  in  Scripture,  be  a 
ground  for  distinguishing  between  Scripture  and  the  word  of 
God.  In  the  other  case  not  Scripture  as  a  whole,  but  in  the 
first  instance  only  certain  words  of  Scripture,  are  immediate 
divine  revelations  to  the  individual ;  they  are  to  him  not  so 
much  authority  as  witnesses  of  his  own  inner  life,  and  this  in 
turn  bears  witness  to  the  divine  truth  in  Scripture.  He  believes 
in  the  word  of  God  in  Scripture,  because  he  has  for  this  the 
testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti ;  the  other  believes  therein,  because 
it  is  given.  He  who  believes  in  Scripture  for  the  sake  of 
the  inner  witness  has  no  trouble  in  distinguishing  between  the 
word  of  God  and  Scripture ;  rather  this  distinction  will  come 
to  him  altogether  spontaneously.  Not  that  he  depreciates  the 
rest  of  the  contents  of  Scripture  !  Rather  he  esteems  it  highly 
for  the  sake  of  the  divine  germ ;  to  him  the  word  of  God  in 
Scripture  is  the  treasure  hidden  in  the  field,  which  without  the 
latter  he  cannot  dig  out.  Not  that  he  does  not  reeognize  and 
treasure  Scripture  as  historically  given ;  but  this  is  to  him  only 
a  secondary  matter.  To  the  former  Scripture  is  primarily  the 
bisiorically  given  book,  and  only  secondarily  the  book  confirmed 
through  the  testimonium  internum.  To  the  other  it  is  primarily 
what  is  confirmed  through  the  testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti, 
and  only  secondarily  what  is  given,  or  ecclesiastical  authority.* 
But  the  latter  case  will  always  be  the  rarer.  The  pious  layman 
will,  as  a  rule,  regard  Scripture  in  its  totality  as  divine  authority, 
and  from  this  presupposition  will  seek  to  understand  it,  and  — 

*  We  leave  out  of  view  entirely  those  that  from  fear  of  nejjation  take 
refuire  in  the  thickest  positivism  and  shudder  at  ever.v  free  investi;zation  as 
nej^ation  and  dangerous  innovation,  as  well  as  those  to  whom  free  investi- 
gation is  welcome  only  as  negation. 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST   AND   SCRIPTURE   STUDY.       345 

so  far  as  he  has  religious  experience  and  insight —  will  actually 
understand  it.^ 

4.    Popular  Understanding  of  Scripture. 

The  laic  understanding  is  soimd  if  it  be  rooted  in  the  How  far  tha 
religious  need  and  consciousness,  if  it  be  supported  chiefly  by  standing?  is 
practical  religious  interest,  and  be  directed  to  the  furtherance  howiarjus-i 
of  the  inner  man,  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  It  is  justijied  so  far  as  it 
conditions  "the  universal  priesthood"  of  Christians,  so  far  as 
it  exercises  and  guards  the  popular  and  practical  study  and 
understanding  of  the  Bible  over  against  the  specifically  theo- 
logical, and  so  far  as  it  does  not  wish  to  know  the  matters  better 
than,  according  to  the  education  and  special  knowledge  of  the 
person  in  question,  it  can  know.  But  the  laic  understanding  is  How  far 
unsound  when  it  becomes  either  dogmatic  or  fantastic.  It  may 
easily  become  dogmatic,  not  only  in  consequence  of  an  orthodox 
or  formalistic  education,  but  also  in  consequence  of  a  peculiarity 
of  the  religious  bent  of  the  person  in  question.  All  religious 
feeling  has,  indeed,  the  inclination  to  become  conception,  and  to 
change  itself  into  the  form  and  language  of  the  understanding ; 
this  is  altogether  normal.  But  if  now  the  religious  conscious- 
ness plants  itself  on  its  conceptional  and  rational  stage,  and 
assumes  the  form  of  the  statute;  if  it  accepts  this  theoretical 
form  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  practical  side,  or  independently  of 
this,  the  laic  understanding  is  unsound.  Or  if  the  religious 
consciousness,  drawing  its  nourishment  from  the  Bible,  instead 
of  being  directed  chiefly  to  the  practical,  prefers  to  follow  the 
impulse  of  the  imagination  and  devotes  itself  to  precisely  what 
is  darkest  and  most  mysterious  in  Scripture,  this  is  an  unsound 
direction.  Not  that  the  fantasy  should  have  no  part  at  all 
in  the  understanding  of  the  Bible,  since  how  are  the  poetical 
parts,  how,  in  general,  is  the  figurative  language  of  the  Bible 
to  be  understood  without  fantasy?  But  every  occupation 
with  Scripture,  or  attempt  to  understand  Scripture,  is  unsound 

1  It  is  unnecessary  to  remark  upon  this  parajrvaph,  as  one  of  the  many 
instancch  in  which  the  author  makes  the  individual  human  reason  the 
arbiter  as  to  the  divine  and  the  human  in  Scripture.  —  Te. 


346  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

in  which  the  interest  of  curiosity  and  idle  subtilty^  the  desire 
to  go  beyond  the  understandhig  of  the  author,  prevails  at  the 

How  far  un-  expense  of  the  practical  religious  interest.  But  the  laic  un- 
derstanding is  not  only  unsound,  but  also  unjustijiahle  if  the 
person  in  question  wishes  to  know  more  and  better  than  he 
can  know,  i.e.  if  he  forms  judgments  upon  things  and  aspects 
in  Scripture,  on  whicS  knowledge  is  requisite  that  he  does 
not  now  possess.  This  is  more  important,  as  it  is  charac- 
teristic of  the  laity  in  every  matter  not  only  not  to  knov/  much 
that  belongs  to  the  matter,  but  also  not  to  be  conscious  of  this 
ignorance}  If  then,  moreover,  to  this  is  added  the  ambition  to 
be  of  some  importance  in  church  and  theology  ;  this  laic  theol- 
ogy thinks  it  has  cause  to  set  itself  as  "  orthodox "  (glaiibig) 
against  "  heterodox "  (unglaiibig)  science  ;  so  from  the  laic 
understanding,  perfectly  justifiable  per  se,  the  imprudence  of 
spiritual  pretension  has  burst  forth,  with  which  no  agreement 
is  possible. 

5.    Scientific  Understanding  of  Scripture. 
The  general  interest  in  Scripture,  as  well  as  the  understanding 
thereof  drawn  from  the  depths  of  the  religious  consciousness, 
may  become  the  incitement  to  the  scientific  study  and  under- 

Relation  of  standing  of  the  Bible.     Not  as  if  the  scientific  understanding 

the  popular  .,  ^       .  it-  i  .    t  -^      ^ 

to  the  scien- necessarily  proceeds  Irom  the  laic  understanding,  as  it  the 
standinjr  of  latter  must  unconditionally  develop  into  the  former.  Just  as 
cnp  ure.  .^^  religion,  if  it  is  sound,  the  theoretical  and  the  practical  are 
one,  so  also  the  religious  interest  or  understanding  of  Scripture 
is  in  no  way  consumed  in  the  scientific  knowledge  thereof,  but 
will  develop  just  as  much  in  its  practical  aspect.  But  now  it 
results  from  the  limitations  of  individual  capacities  that  in 
one  man  the  religious  spirit,  and  hence  the  immediate  under- 
standing of  Scripture,  is  more  a  practical  understanding,  in 
another  more  a  theoretical.  This  is  the  difference  of  the 
■^apCafxaTa ;  with  one  man  the  ;)(aptcr/xa  Svvd/xewv,  avrLk-qij/eu)';  or 
Kv/Sepv-qcreois  prevails,  with  another  the  ;j(apt(7/xa  yi/cotrctDg.      The 

1  These  are  Swiss  and  German  laymen  (not  Americans),  that  our  author 
speaks  of.  —  Tk. 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST  AND   SCRIPTURE   STUDY.       347 

latter  is  inclined  by  nature  to  theology,  and,  if   liis  religious  J^ivorsitiea 
interest  is  directed  chiefly  to  the  Christian  documents,  to  hih- 
lical  theology.     Here    the  question  may   arise,  What   is    the  Transitk^n 
proper  transition  from  the  immediate  and  popular  understand-  P^P^'^^^to 
ing  of  Scripture  to  the  scientific?     This  question  is  important  tide, 
for   the   reason   that   the   lamentation   is   often  uttered,  that 
through  scientific  study  faith  is   lost.     We  cannot,  therefore, 
pass  by  the  question  how  far,  in  general,  this  lament  is  well- 
founded.     We  leave  out  of   view  here   special    circumstances 
that  have  their  ground  in  the  individuality  of  teachers  or  of 
pupils,  and  hold  ourselves  to  the  general  question.     The  ques-  wimt.^ 
tion  is,  what  is  meant  by  "faith  in  Scripture"  (Bible  faith)  ;  scripture? 
by  this  may  be  understood  faith  in  the  unconditioned  inspira- 
tion and  infallibility  of  Scripture  —  by  this  may  be  understood 
belief  that  the  Scriptures,  even  according  to  the  text  received 
and  handed  down  since  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries, 
are  from  beginning  to  end  a  divine  codex  of  revelation  ;  thus  an 
"  injuring  "  or  "  endangering  "  of  this  belief  is  inevitable.     If, 
then,  such  a  hearer  learns  that  the  principal  proof-text  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  (1  John  v.  7)  is  spurious,  that  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  section  about  the  adulteress  (John  vii.  o3-viii. 
11),  of  the  conclusion  of  Mark  (xvi.  9-20),  of  the  account  of 
the  angel  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda  (John  v.  4)  has  been  dis- 
puted with  right;  if  he  hears  that  1  Tim.  iii.  16  is  to  be  read 
and   translated   not  *'  God  (^eos)  manifest   in  the  flesh,"^  but 
"  who  (os)  has  been  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  that  John  xiv.  1 
is   to  be  rendered  not  "  ye  believe  in   God,  believe  also  in 
me  "  ;  but  "  believe  in  God  and  believe  in  me,"  etc. ;  his  "  faith 
in  the  Bible"  will  certainly  be  extremely  disturbed.     Nay,  it 
will  probably  be  a  source  of  great  disquietude  to  him  if  he 
learns  that  our  division  into  chapters  proceeds  not  from  the 
sacred  authors  themselves,  but  from  the  Cardinal  Hugo  of  St. 
Caro  (thirteenth  century),  and  our  division  into  verses    was 
made  not  until  the  sixteenth  century,  by  the  learned  printer 
Bobt.  Stephanus  (Etienne).     Still  more  disquieting  and  offen- 
sive by  far  will  it  be  for  him  to  learn  that  several  writings  of 


348  EEUGIOTTS  UNDERSTANDING. 

the  New  Testament  have  not  at  all  times  been  regarded  as 
genuine  and  canonical  writings,  that  these  and  other  writings 
from  linguistic  and  historical  grounds  are  held  as  doubtful, 
that  most  of  the  Old  Testament  passages  cited  by  the  New 
Testament  writers  have  not  here  the  sense  that  was  jlttached 
to  them  by  the  Old  Testament  writers  themselves,  etc.  The 
more  this  young  man  has  come  to  the  scientific  study  of  the 
Bible  with  tlie  dogmatic  conception  of  the  inspiration  and  the 
equal  divinity  of  Scripture  in  all  its  parts,  the  more  will  his 
"faith  in  the  Bible"  be. damaged.  But  that  "faith"  which 
must  needs  be  overthrown,  because  it  contradicts  historical 
truth  is  not  the  proper  transition  to  theological  study,  neither 
is  it  right  faith  at  all.  That  is  not  believing  in  Scripture 
when  it  is  settled  beforehand  that  the  words  of  Jesus  or  of  the 
Apostles  must  run  so  and  so  —  they  must  have  this  and  that 
sense  if  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  words  of  God  ;  or 
Scripture  must  have  arisen  so  or  so  if  we  are  to  be  able  to 
Proper  atti-  regard  it  as  Hohj  Scripture.  Not  maintaining,  but  inquiring 
Btudontof  and  learning,  should  we  enter  up 3n  the  study  of  Scripture, 
crip  ure.  ■£^^.^^^  ^\^q  non-theologiau  has  something  in  Scrij^ture,  and  knows 
what  he  has  therein  :  not  a  book  endowed  with  these  presupr 
posed  supernatural  attributes,  but  "  the  word  of  life,"  the  holy 
document  of  our  faith.  But  the  better  he  knows  this,  the 
more  obedient  and  receptive  is  his  attitude  towards  Scripture 
(1  Sam.  iii.  10),  and  the  less  will  his  faith  be  destroyed  through 
the  knowledge  that  this  Scripture,  although  full  of  divine  words 
and  eternal  truths,  is  yet  through  and  through  human.  The 
genuine  believer,  as  inquiring  and  willing  to  learn,  will,  indeed, 
have  a  foreboding  of  the  fact  that  his  faith,  so  far  as  it  is  knowl- 
edge, is  still  exceedingly  defective,  and  needs  not  only  enriching, 
but  also  much  correction.  Genuine  faith,  moreover,  is  not  pusil- 
lanimous, but  courageous  and  confident ;  it  has  the  assurance 
that,  even  if  many  i-eputed  props  of  faith  prove  rotten  and 
must  fall  away,  the  saving  truth  yet  remains  forever.  Ilia 
faith  will  not  be  endangered  by  science  who  goes  to  the  scien- 
tific study  of  Scripture  with  that  eagerness  to  learn  and  this 
courage.     Cf.  above  I.  §'lo. 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST  AND  EXEGETICAL  PROCEDURE.    349 

2.    The  Eelation  of  the  Religious  Interest  to  the 
Exegetical  Procedure. 

6.    Religious  Interest  and  Science. 

We  cannot  thus  allow  that  a  particular  dogmatic  conception 
or  doctrine  of  Scripture  must  be  confirmed  through  the  exe- 
getical  work,  as  if  Scripture  were  subordinate  to  an  ecclesias- 
tical opinion ;  but  the  question  is  simply  and  only  as  to  what 
we,  objectively  and  historically,  have  in  Scripture  as  a  whole 
and  in  its  parts.  This  question  can  be  decided  not  by  religious 
feeling  and  interest,  but  merely  by  science  proceeding  objec- 
tively and  without  presupposition.  It  is  the  religious  interest, 
indeed,  that,  as  a  rule,  impels  to  this  scientific  study.  It  is  the 
religious  interest  that  will  know  what  we  have  at  bottom  in 
Scripture.  But  this  itself  cannot  be  determined  by  means  of 
the  religious  interest,  in  general  not  by  means  of  a  subjective 
interest.  Just  where  the  investigation  itself,  i.e.  the  criticism 
and  the  exegesis,  begins  the  religious  interest  must  withdraw, 
and  the  matter  is  to  be  committed  confidingly  to  the  scien- 
tific processes.  The  religious  and  the  scientific  agree,  indeed, 
in  the  fact  that  loth  aim  at  the  truth.  They  differ  only  in  wherein 
the  fact  that  the  religious  interest  is  directed  to  what  is  true  gious  and 
for  me,  but  the  scientific  to  what  is  true  in  itself.  But  in  tilf/a^ree 
unnumbered  cases,  namely,  where  questions  of  textual  criti-  ^^  ^'* 
cism,  of  language,  of  logic,  etc.  arise,  we  have  to  do  with 
purely  objective  matters,  and  the  religious  feeling  can  have 
nothing  to  say  thereabout.  Thus  the  entire  critical  and  exe- 
getlcal  work,  as  such,  belongs  simply  to  unbiassed  and  disin- 
terested science,  and  the  religious  interest  can  in  no  wise  sit 
in  judgment  on  the  results  of  science,  but  must  submit  all  pre- 
carious, doubtful  or  false  results  of  science  in  turn  to  science 
itself,  because  only  science  can  correct  science;  on  the  contrary 
the  religious  consciousness  must  stand  free  to  appropriate  or  not 
to  appropriate  the  results  of  science.  These  results  may  be  Howtliere« 
either  of  such  a  nature  as  not  to  affect  the  religious  interest ;  sdoTsncss"' 
in  which  case  it  simply  leaves  them  undecided  ;  or  the  religious  Jvit?i Icien- 


interest  is  really  affected  thereby ;  in  which  case  they  may  be 
30 


tilic  results. 


350 


RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 


When  the 
relisjious 
protest  is 
justilled. 


Textnal 

criticism 
lias  a  rtli- 
pious  as 
%v(>'l  as 
ecientific 
Bide. 


either  sucli  as  it  can  appropriate^  or  they  may  be  of  such  a 
nature  that  it  cannot  do  this ;  in  which  latter  case  it  cither 
ignores  them  or  rejDcls  them  with  protest.  In  this  we  do  not, 
of  course,  say  that  science  now  on  its  part  is  obliged  to  respect 
this  protest  of  the  religious  interest ;  it  will  rather  act  critically 
in  the  matter,  i.e.  prove  whether  the  protest  is  justified  or  not.  In 
the  former  case  it  is  in  fact  incumbent  upon  science  to  revise  its 
results.  But  in  what  case  is  the  pi-otest  of  the  religious  need  jus- 
tified ?  Not  if  it  has  proceeded  from  an  ecclesiastical  presup- 
position or  from  a  merely  subjective  pious  feeling;  for  the  reason 
that  neither  biblical  truth  is  to  be  subordinated  to  ecclesiastical, 
nor  historical  truth  to  subjective  feeling.  But,  indeed,  if  the 
religious  protest  is  directed  against  arbitrariness  and  '•  tendency" 
theology,^  science  is  not  to  avoid  a  renewed  investigation. 
The  dogmatically  colored  religious  consciousness  will,  indeed, 
always  be  inclined  to  find  in  scientific  results  that  are  at 
variance  with  itself,  ''  tendency  "  and  ai-bitrariness,  even  where 
this  is  not  the  case ;  whether  such  actually  find  place  or  not, 
only  an  impartial  science  again  can  decide.  In  such  case  the 
relififious  consciousness  as  well  as  the  scientific  investi/jjation 
must  each  withdraw  to  its  own  province,  until  either  the 
former  succeeds  in  convincing  the  latter  that  it  has  overlooked 
or  attached  too  little  importance  to  certain  considerations,  or 
the  latter  succeeds  in  convincing  the  former  that  its  result  is 
true,  and  the  aKavhaXov  of  the  former  merely  a  scandalum 
sumtum. 

7,  Relisious  interest  and  Textual  Criticism. 
It  belongs  equally  to  the  religious  and  to  the  literary-his- 
torical interest  to  know  how  the  Apostles,  apostolic  disciples, 
and  Evangelists  originally  wrote.  So,  then,  textual  criticism 
rests  as  well  on  a  religious  as  on  a  scientific  interest;  but  the 
questions  of  textual  criticism  can  be  answered  absolutely  in  a 

1  The  technical  desiLrnation  in  Germany  of  the  critical  school  of  Baur, 
■which  has  attempted  to  explain  the  rise  of  the  New  Testament  writings 
from  the  action  and  reaction  of  su])posed  tendencies  in  tlic  early  church, 
especially  the  Pauline  and  the  Petrine  tendencies,  and  attempts  to  harmoQ- 
ize  them.  —  Tr. 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST  AND  EXEGETICAL  PROCEDURE.    851 

scientific  way  only  as  was  shown  above  (II.  §  Iff.).  Very 
many  variations  are  merely  ortliographical,  as  XrjiJ/ofxaL  or 
Xrifxij/oixaL,  YjkOov  or  rjXOav,  et  al.,  and  do  not  affect  the  religious 
interest  in  the  least ;  others  are  grammatical  as.  e.g.  the  dif- 
ference between  yti/wo-Kworti/  and  yivwa-Kovcnv  (John  xvii.  3), 
between  KaraSovXojcrovcnv  and  KaraSovXtoo-oovTat  (Gal.  ii.  4), 
differences  that  affect  the  religious  interest  only  in  so  far  as  it 
may  be  supposed  to  be  at  variance  therewith,  that  the  New- 
Testament  authors  have  allowed  themselves  in  such  barbarisms 
as  the  future  or  the  present  indicative  after  tva.  But  cf. 
1  Cor.  iv.  6  (tW  fJiT}  .  .  .  (fiva-Lova-Oe),  Gal.  ii.  2  (/xi^Trajs  .  .  .  4'Spa- 

ixov),  et  al.     But  even   if   those    barbarisms   not   completely  Groundless 

-,.,-,,.  T.T  r.    1      postulate, 

assured  by  criticism  stood  isolated,  the  intermeddling  of  the 

relioious  interest  would  still  be  inadmissible,  because  it  would 

rest   on    the   groundless    postulate    that    the  New  Testament 

authors  might  and  could   have  written   no  barbarisms.     This 

has  reo-ard  to  the  form   only.     But    there   are   variations  of 

reading  that   have  to   do  with  the  contents  and   affect  more 

closely  the  religious  interest.     The  dogmatic  more   than  the 

religious  feeling  is  disturbed  by  the  fact  that  1  Tim.  iii.  16  is 

probably  to   be  read    os  and  not  Oeos,  and  thus  the  formula, 

"  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  is  abolished.     Yet  without  regard  Preponder- 

-  ...  ,  .  .1    •      T   1       anceofcrit- 

to  the  fact  that  the  same  thing  in  substance  is  said  in  John  icaiprounda 

i.  14.  we  must  here  also  insist  upon  the  fact,. that  not  the 

dogmatic  interest,  but  simply  and  solely  the  preponderance  of 

the  critical  grounds  has  to  decide  upon  the  genuineness  of  the 

one  or  the  other  reading.     Of  another  kind,  to  be  sure,  is  Luke 

ix.  55,  56,  where  the  Textus  "Receptus,  with  several  ancient 

witnesses,  after  iTreTifirjcrev  avTov^  reads,  Ovk  olSare  ttolov  Trvev- 

/xaro's  eore  v/xet5 ;   and  further,  6  yap  vtos  tov  dvOpojTrov  ovk  ijXOe 

ji/uvas    avOpu)7ruiV    aTroXicrai,   (l/\Aa  crcoo-at,   wliile    the    most    and 

best  Codd.,  as  nBAC  .  .  . ,  omit  entirely  both  these  passages. 

Here  one  cannot  be  expected  to  bear  with  equanimity  being 

obliged  to  give  up  in  the  text  these  words,  so  entirely  in  keep- 

m<T  with  the  mind  of  Jesus.     Here,  also,  without  regard  to  this, 

the  objective  fact  has  the  last  word,  and  we  must  acquiesce  in 


352  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

cUation?  ^^'^^'  -^^^^^  hazardous  seem  actual  blunders,  as,  especially, 
incorrect  citations,  such  as  Mark  i.  1,  where  the  prophetic 
passage  cited  is  designated  as  the  word  of  Isaiah,  whereas  it 
stands  not  in  Isaiah,  but  in  Mai.  iii.  1,  and  Matt,  xxvii.  9,  where 
a  passage  is  cited  as  an  expression  of  Jeremiah,  whereas  it 
stands  in  Zech.  xi.  13.  Here  the  religious  interest  seems  in 
fact  endangered,  and  hence,  also,  is  justified  in  giving  the 
preference  in  the  passage  in  Mark  to  the  other  reading,  which 
omits  'Hcratov,  and  in  the  passage  in  Matthew  either  to  prefer 
the  reading  ^axaplov  (very  weakly  attested,  certainly),  or  the 
other  reading  which  dispenses  with  the  name  entirely.  But 
even  in  this  case  the  religious  interest  must  yield  to  historical 
veracity  —  the  biassed  religious  interest  to  the  unbiassed.  The 
same  holds  true  with  regard  to  entire  sections,  as  John  vii. 
53-viii.  11  and  Mark  xvi.  9-20,  whose  genuineness  is  more 
than  doubtful.^  A  mind,  to  which  the  word  of  God  and 
Scripture  are  simply  identical,  may  well  feel  extremely  sliocked 
to  find  that  whole  sections  of  the  latter  are  ungenuine ;  but 
such  is  precisely  the  case,  and  a  glance  into  any  critical  edition, 
or  into  the  Codd.  Vatic,  Sinait.,  and  others,  that  have  been 
made  accessible  through  the  press,  must  convince  even  those 
.  that  have  the  deepest  mistrust  of  criticism  of  the  well  grounded 
nature  of  the  doubt.  To  the  sound  religious  mind  the  posses- 
sion of  the  authentic  text  must  be  more  imjiortant  than  the 
possession  of  certain  passages  sanctified,  as  it  were,  by  tradition. 

8.    Religious  Interest  and  Cramnnar. 

The  religious  (or  rather  the  dogmatic)  interest  has  just  as 
little  right  to  intermeddle  with  the  r/rammatical  explanation, 
as  this  is  to  be  determined  through  the  connection  and  the 
linguistic  usage.  It  may  feel  tempted  to  such  intermeddling 
through  the  habit  of  finding  in  Scripture  dicta  probaniia  for 
certain  doctrines,  if  it  is  shown  that  this  or  that  passage  has 

1  For  a  vindication  of  the  genuineness  of  Mark  xvi.  9-20,  see  Bleck, 
Syno])iisclie  I'.rlvlarung;  Burfjnn,  The  Genuineness  of  the  last  twelve 
verses  of  jNIark;  and  a  valuable  Article  by  Dr.  John  A.  Broadus  in  the 
Baptist  Quarterly  for  1869.  Bur<;on  refers  to  Dr.  Hroadus's  Article  with 
approbation.      Tr. 


scientific 
exegesis. 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST  AND  EXEGETICAL  PROCEDURE.    353 

another  sense.     A  conflict   may  arise,  e.g.  between  the  clog-  c^^Aj^t  be. 
matic  interest,  which  is  accustomed  to  regard  Matt,  xxviii.  10,  f-g^^J^l^^ 
2  Cor.  xiii.  13,  and  even  Rom.  xi.  36  as    sedes   doctrinae  de 
Sacra  Trinitate,  and  the  scientific  exegesis,  which  shows  from 
the  connection  that  the  trinity  of  essence,  at  least,  is  not  con- 
tained in  these  passages.     The  dogmatic  interest  is  likewise 
offended  when  it  is  shown  from  the  connection  that  the  words 
John  X.  30  do  not  mean  to  express,  at  least  immediately,  the 
unity  of  essence  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  but  first  of  all 
only   the  unity   of   the    8vVa/xt?  o-co^ovcra.     The  interest,  that 
would  derive  everything  good  exclusively  from  faith,  will  not 
without  chagrin  suffer  the  so-called  proof-text  Rom.  xiv.  23  to 
be  snatched  away  through  the  proof  that  here  not  faith  as  the 
principle  of  the  Christian  life  is  spoken  of,  but  the  conviction 
that  a  certain  action  is  allowable.     Nevertheless  here,  also,  the 
scientific  proof  has  its  full  justification  over  against  the  dog- 
matic interest,  and  neither  must  the  former  yield  to  the  latter, 
Dor  is  a  compromise  between  the  two  admissible.     Here,  also, 
we  have  simply  to  do  with  the    sense   that   the    author   has 
designed;  with  a  historical  fact  that  is  to  be  ascertained  no 
otherwise  than  from    the   connection   and  from   the   parallel 
passages.     The  well-understood  religious  interest  will  in  this 
way,Ind  in  this  alone,  arrive  at  the  right  knowledge  of  the 
Scripture  word,  and  will  appropriate  this  as  it  is  in  itself,  and 
not  as  one  would  have  it.     Not  unfrequently  the  dogmatically  a  T^  dta-^^ 
colored  religious  consciousness  will  come   into    collision  withN.T. 
the  scientific  exegesis  when  it  falls  to  the  lot  of  the  latter  to 
show  that  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  that  are  cited 
by  the  New  Testament  authors  as  proof-texts  for  a  doctrine 
or  a  fact,  have  not  the  sense  which  the  New  Testament  authors 
lend    to    them.  '  Cf.   Matt.  i.  22,  23  coll.  Isa.  vii.  14,    which 
passage  has  been  looked  upon  from  of  old  as  a  genuine  proof- 
text  ior  the  birth  of  Christ  from  a  virgin  (but  see  II.  §  33)  ; 
further.  Matt.  ii.  15  (cf.  as  above)  and  many  others.     It  is,  to 
be  sure,  hard  to  admit  that  the  Apostles  or  Evangelists  have 
erred,  that  they  have  attributed  to  an  Old  Testament  word  an 
80* 


354  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

incorrect  sense;  but  in  Gal.  iv.  22ff. ;  1  Cor.  x.  3,  4  ;  ix.  9 
such  cannot  be  denied.^  Cf.  in  general  II.  §  32  ff.  with  I. 
§  37  ff.  It  must  here  be  repeated,  that  not  the  religious  in- 
terest in  itself,  but  only  the  dogmatically  colored  religious 
interest  can  come  in  conflict  with  genuine  and  correct  exegesis, 
for  that  subordinates  itself  to  the  facts,  while  this  has  always 
striven  to  subordinate  the  facts  to  itself.  The  latter  can  be 
avoided  only  by  keeping  the  scientijic  and  the  religious  func- 
tions purely  separate. 

9.    Religious  Interest  and  the  Confessional  Consciousness. 

Yet  cases  occur  where  such  a  separation  of  the  i-eligious 
interest  and  the  exegetical  work  is  impossible,  and  the  influence 
of  the  former  upon  the  latter  seems  to  be  necessary.  It  is 
well-known  what  influence  the  confessional  consciousness  has 
exercised,  and  in  part  still  exercises,  on  exegesis.  The  Catholic 
explains  the  words  pronounced  by  Christ  at  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  otherwise  than  the  Protestant,  the  Lutheran 
otherwise  than  the  Reformed.  We  know  how  differently  the 
passage  Rom.  ix.  14ff.  is  explained  by  Lutherans  and  Re- 
formed. The  confessional  consciousness  has  exercised  an 
influence  even  on  the  explanation  of  such  christological  passages 
as  Phil.  ii.  6  ff.  And,  indeed,  this  influence  has  consisted  not 
only  in  the  fact  that  the  Scripture  passages  in  question  have 
made  different  impressions  on  the  confessional  consciousness  of 
the  interpreters,  but  in  the  fact  that  they  have  sought  to  sustain 
this  their  confessional  view  through  a  corresponding  exegesis. 
Should  not  this  be  allowed  and  even  justified  ?  To  this  v/e 
can  simply  say,  dogmatics  is  one  thing,  exegesis  another.  If 
dogmatics  were  identical  with  exegesis,  if  it  were  simply 
biblical  dogmatics,  it  would  have  to  rest  on,  exegesis  alone. 
Conversely,  if  the  Christian  consciousness  of  the  present  (of 
the  theologian  of  the  present)  were  identical  with  the  spirit  of 
primitive  Christianity,   that   relation    to    Scripture    would   be 

1  Cf.  on  these  passag:cs  Lighffoot,  Ellkott,  and  Lanr/e,  Comm.  in  loc. 
Gal. ;  Lanrje,  in  loc.  Cor.  In  the  interest  of  a  liberal  dealing  with  Scripture 
oui'  author  sometimes  appears  dogmatic  in  his  asseraona.  —  Tk. 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST  AND  EXEGETICAL  PROCEDURE.    3oo 

naturally  and  scientifically  justified.  But  dogmatics  and  the 
confessional  consciousness,  even  though  grounded  on  the  word 
of  God  in  Scripture,  are  yet  essentially  modified  through  the 
development  of  Christianity  up  to  the  present  time.  Exegesis 
on  the  contrary  has  to  do  simply  with  the  historical  facts  of 
the  sense  of  the  sacred  author.  Accordingly  the  influence  of 
the  confessional  consciousness  on  Scripture  interpretation 
cannot  he  exegetically  justified.  Nay,  it  may  be  said  —  as 
moreover  must  have  become  clear  from  the  history  of  exegesis 
—  that  biblical  exegesis  has  become  scientific  and  objective  pre- 
cisely to  the  extent  that  it  has  been  able  to  emancipate  itself 
from  the  fetters  of  ecclesiastical  creeds.  The  matter  may  be 
best  illustrated  by  the  examples  cited  above  :       1)  The  words  "Words  pro 

,  ,       .       .       .  n     1       T       i»     o  /'TT     T       •      nounced  at 

pronounced  at  the  mstitution  of  the  Lord  s  bupper  (Mark  xiv.  the  institu- 

22-24;  Matt.  xxvi.  26-28),  especially  in  the  expression  tovto  Eucharist. 

ecrrtv  (to  (Xhifxa  f^ov  on  to  to  at/xa  fxov),  conceived  in  a    purely 

exegetical  way,  show  the  groundlessness  of  all  three  confessional 

explanations,  since  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  ia-rl  here  is  a 

mere  copula,  as  in  Matt.  xiii.  37,  38 ;  Luke  viii.  1 1  f. :  John 

XV.  1,  5  ;  but  being  a  mere  copula  it   is  more  than  probable 

that  Jesus,  in  accordance  with  the  Hebraistic  usage,  did  not 

express  it  at  all  (cf.,  e.g.  Gen.  ii.  23  ;  Isa.  v.  7),  that  thus  the 

whole  subject  of   dispute  falls    away.^     But   if   it  should    be 

further  argued  that  even  without  an  expressed  copula  the  real 

identity  or  immanence,  or  merely  the  symbolical  meaning  may 

be  expressed  in  the  words,  what  Dr.  Strauss  has  said  remains 

true :  "  Only  in  the  transferrins^  into  the  abstracter  conscious-  strauss's 

.  .         view. 

ness  of  the  West  and  of  the  more  recent  time,  what  the  ancient 
Oriental  thought  of  under  his  toCto  eo-Tt  is  analyzed  into  those 
various  possibilities  of  meaning,  which  we  if  we  would  reproduce 
in  ourselves  the  original  thoughts  must  not  separate  in  this  way 
at  all.  To  the  writers  of  our  Gospels  the  bread  in  the  Eucha- 
rist was  the  body  of  Christ ;  but  had  they  been  asked  whether 

1  See  on  the  power  of  the  Aramaic  languao:e  to  express  the  exact  rela- 
tion between  subject  and  predicate  in  this  case  Cardinal  Wisemaji's  learned 
and  elaborate  treatise  in  his  Horae  Syriacae.  This  discussion  will  be  found 
very  interesting  by  those  somewhat  familiar  with  Syriac.  —  Te. 


356  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

•  the  bread  was  changed  ?  they  would  have  denied  it ;  had  they 
been  spoken  to  of  an  eating  of  the  body  with  and  under  the  form 
of  the  bread,  they  would  not  have  understood  what  was  meant ; 
had  it  been  argued  that,  therefore,  the  bread  merely  means  the 
Eom.  ix.  body,  they  would  not  have  been  content  with  this."  2)  The 
doctrine  of  passage  Rom.  ix.  6  &.  has  been,  as  is  well-known,  a  proof-text 
e  ec  ion.  ^j^^  ^-^^  Reformed  (Calvinists)  for  the  doctrine  of  election, 
while  the  Catholics,  the  Lutherans  and  the  Armiuians  did  not 
find  this  doctrine  in  that  section.  Here  also  we  are  to  dis- 
regard every  confessional  interest,  and  to  have  regard  purely 
to  the  connection  and  the  intention  of  the  passage.  But  from 
these,  it  is  clear  that  the  Apostle  has  not  in  mind  the  setting 
forth  of  a  doctrine  of  election,  but  the  discussion  of  the  painful 
question  whetlier  the  Israelites  have  been  excluded  from  salva- 
tion (vs.  1—5).  Now  it  is  indisputable  that  ix.-xi.  forms  one 
whole,  in  which  this  subject  in  its  different  aspects  is  treated 
(cf.  X.  1  ;  xi.  1,  25  ff.),  it  being  shown  in  ix.  6-29  that  there 
can  be  no  claim  to  salvation,  but  that  it  is  all  free  grace;  in 
ix.  30  to  the  end  of  x.  that  the  exclusion  of  the  Jews  from 
salvation  is  a  self-deserved  exclusion  ;  and,  finally,  in  xi.  that 
it  is  not  absolute  and  final.  So  harsh  are  the  words  of  the 
Apostle  in  the  first  section,  so  mild  are  they  in  the  last !  If, 
therefore,  it  is  the  Apostle's  chief  aim  to  make  prominent  the 
free  grace  and  the  unconditioned  counsel  of  God  with  all 
emphasis  over  against  the  claiming  of  salvation  on  the  part  of 
the  Jews  as  a  matter  of  right,  the  drift  of  the  discussion  is 
directed  just  to  this,  and  not  to  a  decretura  absolutum  and 
duplex.  This  proceeds  not  from  any  dogmatic  sympathy  or 
antipathy  whatever,  but  from  the  connection  of  the  passage 
Phil.  ii.  6  f.  itself.  3)   The    confessional   consciousness  could   have  an 

natunfrum^  influence  upon  the  explanation  of  Phil.  ii.  G  f.  in  as  far  as  the 
Chnsti.  Lutherans  found  in  the  passage  the  unio  naturarum  Christi, 
and  that  in  the  form  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum ;  the 
Reformed,  on  the  other  hand,  were  averse  to  this  doctrine,  and 
hence  to  an  explanation  wliich  ministers  thereto.  As  a  result 
of   this   interest   the  one   party  explained    the  expression   iv 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST  AND  EXEGETICAL  PROCEDURE.    857 

fiop4>fj  Oeov  vTtapx^v  of  the  immanent  divine  glory  of  the 
incarnate  Logos,  regarding  the  present  jDarticiple  as  contem- 
poraneous with  the  kavTov  iKevwaev,  while  the  other  party 
regarded  it  as  referring  to  the  pre-incarnate  Logos.  That  not 
agreement  with  a  confessional  doctrine,  but  simply  and  solely 
exec^etical  considerations   are  here    to  decide,  is   self-evident. 

o 

See,  moreover,  II.  §  47. 

10.   Religious  Interest  and  Historical  Criticisnn. 

The  religious  interest  seems  to  be  endangered  most  of  all 
through  the  historical  criticism.     Without  entering  upon  the  g?Pj^^^«^^^ 
"  tendential "  hyper-criticism,  it  seems  actually  for  the  pious  laic  hyper-criti- 

*^  .  „     ,  cism. 

consciousness,  to  say  nothing  of  the  consciousness  ot  the  pro- 
fessional apologist,  an  impossibility,  to  be  reconciled  to  investi- 
gations that  think  to  recognize  in  the  history  of  the  childhood 
of  Jesus,  in  the  history  of  his  baptism  and  temptation,  in  the 
history  of  his  resurrection  and  ascension,  etc.,  not  history,  but 
myths  and  legends ;  that  think  that  a  real  history  of  Jesus  can 
be  wrought  out  only  through  critical  operations.  If  now,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  popular  faith  is  repelled  through  such  critical 
inquiries  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  positive  theology  employs 
all  its  powers  in  trying  to  dispel  the  appearance  oi  contradic- 
tions and  improbabilities  and  to  establish  the  strict  credibility 
of  the  biblical  history,^  the  contradiction  between  faith  and 
science  seems,  in  fact,  to  be  merely  the  contradiction  between 
''revelation  and  criticism,"  and  the  emphatic  intervention 
of  ''  faith  "  in  the  efforts  of  critical  science  seems  to  be  jus- 
tified.    On  the  other  hand,  historical  investigation  in  general,  Advance  of 

,  .  ,  ,      historical 

not  biblical  alone,  has  in  our  time  become  incomparably  criticism, 
more  thorough,  — it  deals  strictly  and "  rigorously  with  the 
historical  truth ;  it  tests  the  sources,  and  is  not  content  until 
authentic  proofs  for  a  fact  lie  before  it,  knd  until  the  persons  . 
and  events  themselves,  and  not  alone  through  the  mediation  -of 
a  popular  tradition  or  of  a  pragmatical  historian,  speak  to  it 
Before  this  inexorable  criticism  many  facts  in  every  depart- 

1  Of  those  that  set  in  motion  the  convenient  means  of  anathemas  and 
suspicions,  we  do  not  here  speak  at  all. 


358  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

ment  of  history  have  already  shown  themselves  to  be  legendary, 
many  chronical  traditions  to  be  uncertain,  and  many  documents 
to  be  ungenuine.  The  facts  of  Christianity,  as  well  as  the 
documents  that  bear  witness  to  the  facts,  are  subjected  to  this 
Facts  and  Critical  procedure.  But  against  just  this  a  protest  is  raised  on 
of  ciiris-  the  part  of  the  religious  consciousness  :  with  human  and 
joc?c/to"  natural  facts,  and  with  human  sources,  says  one,  such  a  critical 
procedure  may  be  justified,  but  not  in  connection  with  super- 
natural facts  and  divine  sources!  But  that  those  facts  are 
supernatural  and  these  sources  not  human,  but  divine,  is  just 
an  assumption,  that  needs  critical  testing.  If  the  religious 
view  is  justified  in  regarding  the  Bible  as  divine,  and  the  facts 
narrated  therein  as  supernatural,  science  has  just  as  much 
right  to  seek  to  conceive  of  the  bibUcal  boohs  as  human,  and 
the  facts  in  question  as  natural.  If  the  interest  of  piety 
may  demflnd  that  criticism  do  not  touch  the  sanctuary  of  faith, 
science  in  turn  must  bespeak  the  right  to  draw  everything  into 
the  circle  of  its  investigation.  Here  the  antagonism  between 
the  '■•orthodox^'  [glaiibig]  and  the  critical  view  and  treatment 
of  the  Bible  appears  at  its  highest.  But  what  docs  the  "ortho- 
dox "  [glaiibig]  view  of  Scripture  mean,  when  it  would  have 
the  Bible  regarded  as  a  divine  book  ?  It  cannot  possibly  be 
meant  —  if  it  knows  its  own  mind— that  the  biblical  books 
were  not  written  by  men,  in  the  language  of  men,  and,  ac- 
cordingly, with  human  thoughts  and  under  human  historical 
ThinjT!  that  relations.  The  biblical  writers  may  have  been  inspired  never 
niitteci  by  "  SO  much,  yet  even  the  religious  view  cannot  deny  that  this 
orthodox,  inspiration  must  have  been  mediated  through  human  feelings 
and  thouglits  before  it  became  Holy  Scriptures,  and  that  air 
this  falls  within  the  province  of  human  critical  inquiry. 
Furthermore,  even  the  most  "  orthodox  "  [glaiibig]  view  cannot 
deny  that  most  of  the  facts  (esp.  miracles)  that  are  narrated 
in  the  Scriptures  are  not  recounted  by  eye-witnesses  themselves, 
but  that  they  have  had  to  pass  through  the  medium  of  popular 
or  ecclesiastical  tradition,  or  through  the  comprehension  of  the 
reporter   himself,   before   they   could   be   reproduced   in   our 


RELIGIOUS  INTEREST  AND  EXEGETICAL  PROCEDURE.    359 

Scriptures.  Even  the  religious  consciousness,  if  it  be  veracious, 
cannot  be  blind  to  the  phenomena  that  bear  witness  to  such  a 
rise  of  biblical  information  and  biblical  writings.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  a  perfectly  fruitless  undertaking,  if  in  the  interest 
of  "  orthodoxy "  an  intervening  meddling  with  the  scientific 
process  should  be  attempted.  On  the  other  hand,  critical 
science  also  transgresses  its  limits  when  it  suffers  itself  to  be 
swayed  by  the  desire  to  subvert  the  religious  interest.  It  may 
overthrow  many  dogmatic  prejudices  -r-  it  could  not,  indeed, 
be  otherwise  ;  but  it  itself  is  to  be  governed  by  no  other  interest 
than  the  brinsfincr  to  light  of  the  truth  with  reference  to  the 
matters  in  hand.     So  also  science  must  never  forget  that  in  Probabiii- 

..  -  .-  p         .      .  r  1  ties  in  many 

the  ascertammoj  of  certam  facts  of  antiquity  —  from  tne  nature  cases  all 

°  .  r      1  ^  that  can  bo 

of  our  sources  —  we  cannot  m  many  cases  go  lartner  than  to  attained. 
probabilities ;  call  to  mind  only  the  most  recent  elaborations 
of    the   life  of   Jesus.     Thus    the   inquiry  may  be   never   so 
thorough  and  conscientious,  the  result  may  be  never  so  well- 
grounded  and  probable  ;  yet  in  hundreds  of  cases  complete  cer- 
tainty is  not  to  be  arrived  at.  Yet  the  hope  is,  to  be  sure,  never  Modesty 
to  be  abandoned  of  coming  ever  nearer  and   nearer  to  truth  mended, 
and  certainty ;  but  the  modesty  that  remains  conscious  of  the 
limits  of  its  knowledge  is  just  as  much  the  duty  of  the  scientific 
inquirer  as  of  the  simple  believer.     That  modesty   which  is 
very  becoming  to  every  man,  and  not  least   to    the   believer 
and  the  man  of  science,  is   no   weak  "mediating  theology," 
but  simply  a  demand  of  veracity,  a  moral  claim.     It  is  such 
modesty  on  both  sides  alone  also  that  breaks  down  the  opposition 
between  faith  and  science,  and  that  makes  possible  an  under- 
standing between  the  two.     Differences,  indeed,  will   always 
remain,  and  the  interest  of  faith  and  science  are,  and  will  con- 
tinue to  be,  at  variance.     The  gulf  between  the  two  can  be  How  the 
bridged  only  in  this  way :         1)  The  religious  interest,  con-  t!Joen^rcli- 
scious  of  its  rights  as  of  its  limitations,  must  confidently  submit  f^JIicefsto 
to  science  the  ascertaining  of  what  Scripture  in  itself  is  and  ^"^^s^^d. 
teaches  ;         2)   Scientific  inquiry  on  its  part,  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  its  rights  as  of  its  limitations,  must  hold  fast  and  defend 


860  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

its  results,  so  far  as  they  are  certain,  but  so  far  as  they  are  only 
probable,  must  not  obtrude  them  upon  faith,  and  must  in  gen- 
eral recognize  the  rights  thereof,  and  3)  Faith  must  accept 
the  assured  results  of  science  from  the  hand  of  science,  and 
must  reconcile  these  results  with  its  interests.  Thus  arises  the 
theological  understanding  of  Scripture. 

3,    The  Theological  Tinder  standing  of  Scripture, 

a)    TJie  Theological  Understanding  Prosper, 

II.    The  Biblical  View  of  Cod  and  the  World. 

Necessity         A  Uviuq  knowledsfc  of  Scripture  without  rehVious  conscious- 

of  religious  .  ^  .,  1         ,  .77,7 

conscious-    ness  IS  no  more  possible    than   a   many-sided   and  thorough 

knowledge  thereof  without  critical,   historical,    ethnographical 

information.     If  to  the  merely  scientific  biblical  student  the 

Scriptures  are  simply  an  interesting  object,  a  proper  sympathy 

of  thought  and  feeling  with  the  biblical  author  is  possible  to  him 

alone  who  comes  to  the  author  with  a  religious  experience  of  his 

own.     To  him  many  difficulties  and  stumbling-blocks  vanish 

In  what       spontaneously.  It  is  true,  and  it  has  been  criticized  unjustly,  that 

theologian   the  theologian,  in  order  to  attain  to  a  living  understanding  of 

priate'the^'  Scripture  must  himself  appropriate  the  biblical  view  of  the  world 

oniie  blbii-  «'^^  of  life  ;  not,  of  course,  in  the  sense  that  he  should  renounce 

cai  writers.  jj^Q^^jg^.j^  culture  and  civilization,  that  he  should  bid  farewell  to 

the  Copernican  view  of  the  universe,  that  he  shoitld  ignore  the 

laws  of  Nature  and  an  immanent  development  of  Nature  ;  nor 

in   the  sense  that  he  should  ill-advisedly  reconcile   the  two 

views,  accepting  the  results  of  modern  science,  and  at  the  same 

time  unwilling  to  give  up  the  historical  nature  of  the  biblical 

miracles.^     Rather^  the  biblico-religious  view  of  the  world  is 

indispensable  to  the  theologian  in  the  sense  that  he  is  to  be 

borne  along  by  religious  reverence  towards  God  as  the  infinite 

'  Our  nuthor,  with  many  German  theologians  of  the  present  time,  seems 
to  regard  miracles  if  notasin]  os^il.l<';'tlenst  as  so  liiglily  improbable  as 
not  to  be  accepted  even  on  the  best  evidence.  It  is  superfluous  to  obscrvo 
that  the  position  is  an  extremely  precarious  one,  and  involves  religious 
interests  of  a  high  order.  —  Tb. 


THEOLOGICAL   UNDERSTANDING   PROPER.  361 

ground  of  all  being,  by  the  longing  for  union  with  him.  Hence 
the  religious  consciousness  is  designated  as  a  process,  which  is 
the  key  to  the  religious  understanding  of  Scripture.  Therefore, 
not  this  or  that  conception  of  the  system  of  the  world  and  of 
the  relation  of  God  to  the  woi'ld,  conditions  the  religious  under- 
standino-  of  Scripture  ;  but  the  ethical  character  of  the  individual,  Ethical  and 

f   1         •       1  J     r^    J    practical 

by  virtue  of  which  he  is  in  a  prayerful  attitude  towards  (jrod.  attitude  to- 
We   have   nothing    to    do   here  with  the  theoretical   attitude  ihe  chief 
towards  the  question  as  to  the  transcendence  or  the  imnianence    "°^" 
of  God,  but  to  the  practical  attitude  of  the  heart  towards  God, 
that  is  to  say,  whether  the  natural  man,  with  his  sensual  wilful- 
ness and  conceit,  has  been  broken,  whether  the  spiritual  aspira- 
tion after  the  ideal  and  infinite  good  has  been  awakened  in  him. 
The  consciousness  of  the  opposition  between  spirit  and  flesh, 
between  the  spiritual  and  the  natural  man,  is  the  conditio  sine 

qua  non  of  the  livinsr  understanding  of  Scripture.     From  this  Biblical 
^  ®  ^  theism, 

consciousness  the  biblical  theism  will  be  comprehended  ;    not 

merely  in  the  sense  that  God  is  regarded  as  the  absolute  object, 
and  a  distinction  is  made  between  God  and  the  world  (the  ego), 
but  also  so  that  God  is  regarded  as  the  absolute  subject  of  every- 
thing that  becomes  or  happens.  If  the  difference  between  the 
natural  man  and  the  spiritual  man  consists  in  the  fact  that  the 
former  regards  himself  as  the  centre  of  all  things,  but  God  as 
such  in  an  extremely  theoretical  way,  to  the  spiritual  man  God 
is  the  centre  of  all  things,  from  whom  he  has  to  derive  every- 
thing —  to  whom  he  has  need  to  refer  everything.  But  just  this 
is  also  the  stand-point  of  the  biblical  writer.  Even  in  this  gen- 
eral relation  it  is  perfectly  true  that  "  the  natural  man  does  not 
know  what  is  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  the  spiritual  man  judges 
everything."  If  God,  now,  is  the  absolute  subject,  he  is  also  in 
the  absolute  sense  the  acting  subject,  and  all  history  is  in  so  far 
God's  history,  as  everything  that  has  happened  comes  from 
God.  But  as  absolute  subject  God  is  also  the  absolute  end  of  all 
things  ;  to  him  all  honor  is  to  be  given,  and  to  his  glorification 
everything  must  minister.  Only  he  for  whom  this  has  become 
a  practical  truth  understands  the  sense  of  the  guiding  thoughts 
31 


862  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

of  all  Scripture :  *'  I  give  my  honor  to  no  other  —  I  save  you  for 

my  name's  sake,  in  order  that  you  may  know  that  I  am  the 

Wiiy  the      Lord,"  etc.     Only  to  him  to  whom  this  has  l)ecome  a  truth  is 

Scriptures     .       ,  t         i        o     •  -.  -,•    -,         n  „         ' 

speak  so       it  clear  why  the  scriptures  speak  so  little  of  "nation,  state, 
"nation,      humanity,"  and  so  much  of  the  "people  of  God,"  of  the  "  king- 
manity,"'     ^0°^  of  heaven,"  and  why  the  ijleas  "  improvement,  civiliza- 
tion, progress,"  are  so  foreign  to  the  Scriptures,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  ideas  "  conversion,  salvation,"  are  so  familiar. 
Only  to  him  to  whom    the  kingdom  of  God  is  the  highest 
reality,  and  men  are  only  means  to  the  realization  thereof,  to 
whom  the  contrast  between  the  public  and  pompous  strivings 
of  men,  and  the  still  and  apparently  insignificant  working  of 
God  has  come  to   consciousness,  is  the   fundamental   idea  of 
the  Bible   cognizable,  that  God  brings  about  his  great  ends 
thrcugh  little  means  (Judges  vi.  15  f. ;  vii.  2-8;  1  Sam.  xvii. 
31-58;   Ex.  iv.  10  ff. ;   Jer.  i.  6  ff . ;    Deut.  vii.  7f.;    1  Cor. 
Biblical       i-  26  ff.).     So,  also  —  and  this  is  a  jDrincipal  point  —  the  reli- 
supernat-^   gious  man  sees  in  everything  the  "finger  of  God";  to  him, 
^  '  therefore,  everything  is  a  "  miracle,"  most  of  all,  of  course,  that 

in  which  the  judging  and  saving  power  of  God  comes  most 
feelingly  to  his  consciousness.  Especially  is  it  the  thankful 
heart  that  sees  miracles  everywhere.  Therefore  to  him  also 
it  is  comprehensible  why  God  is  called  "  a  God  of  wonders  " 
(Ps.  Ixxvii.  15  ;  xcviii.  1)  ;  to  him  also  the  expressions  "the  hand 
—  the  outstretched  arm  of  the  Lord  "  are  comprehensible ;  to 
him  it  is  also  comprehensible  how  the  Scriptures  can  call  things 
"  miracles  "  which  to  modern  supranaturalism  are  not  miracles ; 
of.  Ps.  cxxxix.  14;  Ixxi.  7  ;  Deut.  xxviii.  46;  esp.  Luke  iv. 
18,  and  vii.  22  {nTOixol  evayyeXi^ovTat) .  In  this  it  is  not  at 
all  said  that  the  religious  man  overlooks,  or  in  any  way  denies, 
the  so-called  mediate  causes ;  only  to  him  God,  as  "  causa 
prima,"  is  much  more  important,  and  he  prefers  to  derive  every- 
thing immediately  from  God,  cf.  Isa.  xlv.  5-7.  This  religious 
need  of  seeing  in  everything  God's  works  and  wonders  is 
the  key  to  the  belief  in  miracles  on  the  part  of  the  biblical 
writers  in  general.     But  this  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the 


THEOLOGICAL  UNDERSTANDING   PROPER.  863 

special  question  as  to  the  supernatural  and  historical  nature  of 
the  individual  miraculous  accounts.  In  each  particular  case  we 
must  inquire,  whether  the  account  is  really  historical ;  whether 
it  is  susceptible  of  a  natural  explanation,  i.e.  whether  mediate 
causes  are  to  be  supplied ;  whether  it  has  arisen  as  a  legend,  or 
whether  it  is  symbolical,  i.e.  the  historical  embodiment  of  an 
idea.  The  "  miracle  "  is  not  a  physical  or  a  metaphysical,  but  a  The  miracle 
religious  conception.  Science  has  to  do  with  ideas,  religion,  with  ^o'nception. 
devotion.  When,  therefore,  we  demand  that  the  Scripture  in- 
terpreter make  his  own  the  biblical  view  of  the  world  and  of  life, 
we  reject  neither  historical  criticism  nor  natural  science  and  its 
undoubted  results,  but  we  merely  assert  the  devotional  attitude 
towards  the  eternal  and  adorable  ijround  of  all  thincrs  —  the  ethi- 
cal  attitude  of  life  towards  God.  This,  of  course,  cannot  but 
have  influence  on  the  theoretical  conception  of  the  world ;  but 
just  as  little  as  the  scientific  knowledge  of  nature  excludes 
admiration,  does  the  educated  view  of  the  world  exclude  the 
religious  view,  which  sees  in  every  act  of  God,  relatively  a 
"  miracle."  And  just  as  little  as  the  critical  study  of  history 
excludes  the  ideal  impulse  to  find  in  history  divine  reason  and 
divine  thoughts,  does  the  critical  examination  of  the  biblical 
facts  exclude  the  belief  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  spiritual 
and  divine  facts.  The  one,  namely,  is  the  empirical  investiga- 
tion of  special  features,  the  other  the  comprehensive,  ideal  con- 
sideration of  what  has  been  empirically  investigated.  The  two 
processes  cannot  easily,  to  be  sure,  go  on  simultaneously,  but 
they  are,  indeed,  to  be  conducted  successively.  Just  as/aith  — 
in  which  devotion  and  thought  are  still  at  one  —  abstains  from  • 
thinking  and  desiring  to  understand,  so  in  the  healthy  soul  un- 
derstanding and  conceiving  return  into  the  unity  of  the  scieri' 
tijlcally  mediated  faith. 

12.    Biblical  Anthropomorphisms  and  Anthropopathisms. 

The  anthropomorphic  and  the  anthropopathic  manner  in 
which  the  Bible  frequently  speaks  of  God  is  a  stumbling-block 
to  the  educated  consciousness.  Here,  at  least,  it  seems  not  to 
be  possible  that  the  interpreter  should  become  at  one  with  Scrip- 


864  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

Gronnd  of   ture.   It  is  true,  of  course,  that  anthropomorphisms  and  anthro- 

authropo-  ^  ^ 

morphisms.  popathisms  have  their  ground  m  great  part  in  the  sensuous  and 
uncultured  conceptions  of  God  ;  that  they  are  most  frequent 
and  most  crude  in  the  most  ancient  parts  of  Scripture,  more 
rare  in  the  later  writings.^  But  if  we  admit  that  even  in  the 
older  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  very  spiritual  and  exalted 
conceptions  of  God  occur  (cf.  Gen.  i.  3 ;  Ps.  viii. ;  xxxiii.  9 ; 
Lev.  xix.  2  ;  Num.  xxiii.  19,  et  al.),  and  on  the  other  hand, 
that  in  the  New  Testament,  and  particularly  in  the  discourses 
of  Jesus,  nay,  even  in  the  Johannean  discourses  of  Christ, 
anthropomorphisms  are  not  rare  (cf.  Matt,  xviii.  10  ;  Luke  xi. 
5-13  ;  XV.  4-10,  20-32 ;  xviii.  1-8  ;  John  x.  29 ;  xiv.  2,  16 ; 
xvii.  4)  ;  we  cannot  attribute  these  sensuous  ways  of  speaking 
simply  to  the  incapacity  of  the  authors  to  rise  to  a  spiritual  idea 
of  God.  The  matter  rather  stands  thus  :  Strong  and  pervasive 
as  is  the  Scripture  writers'  consciousness  of  the  exaltation  and 
holiness  of  God,  of  the  insignificance  and  sinfulness  of  the 
human  creature,  yet  just  as  much  a  matter  of  fact  with  most 
of  them  is  intercourse  with  God.  The  effect  of  this  familiar 
association  is  that  they  are  able  without  detracting  from  their 
idea  of  God  to  converse  humanly,  and,  so  to  speak,  naively 
Character  with  God.  In  general  these  anthropomorphic  and  anthro- 
throlfomor-  popathic  expressions  are  never  didactically  intended,  but  are 
pressf^ns.  reflections  of  what  the  soul  has  learned  from  God,  on  the  con- 
ceptlon  of  God,  hypostatizings  of  religious  experiences  ;  so  espe- 
cially the  expressions  :  anger  of  God,  zeal  of  God,  compassion, 
repentance  of  God  (1  Sam.  xv.  11 ;  Ps.  cvi.  45  ;  Amos  vii.  3,  6 ; 
John  iii.  9, 10).  In  general  the  conviction  presses  itself  upon  the 
attentive  and  thorough  biblical  student,  that  the  sacred  authors 
have  to  do  with  very  realistic  and  corporeal  conceptions,  and 
that  we,  with  our  striving  after  abstractions  and  distinctions,  are 
not  competent  to  think  and  feel  with  the  Prophets  and  Apos- 
tles, or,  if  we  would,  we  must  think  otherwise  than  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  think.     (Cf.  the  passage  cited  on  p.  78  from  Rothe's 

1  This  seems  to  me  rather  doubtful  (so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  con- 
cerned).   Is  there  more  of  this  in  Genesis  than  in  Kings,  e.g.  ?  —  Tb. 


THEOLOGICAL  UNDERSTANDING  PROPER.      365 

preface  to  Auberlen's  "  Ch.  F.  Oetinger")  But  here  it  is  well 
to  discriminate  between  realistic  ideas  that  have  originated  by 
way  of  distinguishing  and  fixing  comprehension  (dogmatic 
ideas),  and  realistic  ideas  that  are  the  product  of  feeling 
and  of  fantasy.  In  Scripture  the  first  kind  is  scarcely  to  be  Distinction 
found  at  all,  while  ideas  of  the  second  kind  are  altogether  pre-  dogmatic 
dominant ;  for  that  which  man  comes  to  experience  as  revela-  ISnJ^ideas. 
tion  and  a  divine  event,  appears  in  his  soul,  first  of  all,  in  the 
form  of  feeling  and  fantasy,  and  is  vivid  and  powerful  only 
so  long  as  it  is  therein  present  in  this  form.  Just  in  this  con- 
sists the  difference  between  the  biblical  and  the  ecclesiastical 
form  of  religious  truth,  that  the  former  has  still  the  living  and 
fresh  form  of  immediateness,  but  the  latter  has  in  itself  the 
rationally  reflecting  form.  Thus  biblical  truth  may  be  com- 
pared to  the  fresh,  growing  plant,  ecclesiastical  truth  to  the 
dried  plants  in  the  herbarium  of  the  botanist.  Instead  of  any 
more  elaborate  proof,  we  cite  only  the  one  idea,  "spirit" 
{TTvevfia), — an  idea  that  differs  just  as  much  through  its  realism 
from  the  usual  modern  iddk  as  through  its  vividness  and  fluidity 
from  the  ecclesiastical.  The  realism  hi  the  biblical  writers  is 
explicable  from  the  fact  that  their  view  is  that  of  faith  —  and 
that  for  faith  the  ideal  is  the  truly  real,  cf.  Heb.  xi.  1  ff.  Only 
the  believer  understands  believing,  and  distinguishes  it  as  well 
from  the  paganism  of  mere  abstraction  as  from  the  Judaism  of 
doctrinal  ecclesiasticism,  or  of  mere  orthodoxy.  In  the  de- 
termination of  the  biblical  idea  in  general  this  is  not  to  be  left 
out  of  account ;  it  is  first  arrived  at  in  a  purely  philological 
way,  but  the  understanding  of  this  idea  is  only  won  from  within, 
i.e.  from  the  connection  of  the  method  of  thought  of  the 
biblical  author,  when  we  can  identify  ourselves  with  him,  i.e. 
can  sympathize  with  him.  Cf.  Zetzschwitz,  as  above.  Cremery 
Biblico-theological  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament  Greek. 

13.    Biblical  Writings  to  be  studied  in  their  Relations. 

Yet  we  have  to  do  not  alone  with  the  religious  understanding 
of  the  biblical  views  in  general,  nor  with  that  of  the  individual 
thoughts  and  ideas,  but  we  must  also  be  able  to  think  and  feel 
31* 


866  RELIGIOUS   UNDERSTANDING. 

What  is  pre-  ourselves  into  the  wJiole  of  a  definite  hihlical  writing.     This 

supposed. 

also  presupposes,  indeed,  all  the  exegetical  and  critical  opera- 
tions, but  also  sympathy  with  the  religious  situation  and  dis- 
position of  the  author.     The  difficulty  here  consists  chiefly  in 

Paul  vs.        the  difference  of  situations  and  of  relisjious  stand-points.     He 
James.  ... 

that  can  think  himself  into  a  Paul  will  hardly  be  able  to  think 

himself   into  a  James ;   nay,  only  with   painstaking   into  the 

SjTioptics     Synoptic  discourses  of  Jesus ;  or  he  that  can  do  the  latter  will 

scarcely  be  able  to  throw  himself  into  the  Johannean  manner 

of  thinking  and  feeling.     And  yet  the  exegete  is  to  be  able  to 

do  this !     How  will  it  be  possible  to  him  who  is  also  afflicted 

with  limitation's   of   individuality  to    think   himself   into  the 

various  writers,  and  thus,  so  to  speak,  to  become  a  universal 

Bequisites:  man?     Two  conditions  are  requisite  for  this :         1)  historical 

historical  ,  .  ,     .        ,  ,  ,.,.,„.  ,.-,  .  , 

Bense;  sense,  which  is  able  to  think  itself  into  dmerent  times,  places, 

and  individualities,  —  a  sense  that  is  acquired  through  study 

reiipons      and  practice,  and         2)  religious  ripeness,  which  has  in  itself 

lived    through   the    various    stages  of   religious   development. 

Two  exam-  Let  US  make  this  clear  by  two  examples,  and  that,  too,  by  such 
pies : 

as  through  their  diversity,  yes,  contrast,  strain  the  problem  to 

its  highest :  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  the  Epistle  of 
Galatians.  James.  The  religious  understanding  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and 
particularly  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  on  the  part  of 
Luther,  springing,  as  it  did,  from  true  spiritual  relationship,  is 
known  to  all,  and  even  the  exegete  of  the  nineteenth  century 
will  draw  rich  instruction  and  edification  from  his  explanation 
of  this  Epistle.  "Whatever  advance  has  been  made  upon  this 
is  due  partly  to  the  philological  understanding  resting  on  better 
linguistic  knowledge,  partly  to  the  historical  understanding 
purified  through  historical  criticism.  We  know  how  Paul  came 
to  believe  in  Christ  and  to  the  Apostolic  calling  in  an  altogether 
different  way  from  the  primitive  Apostles ;  not  through  per- 
sonal association  with  Jesus,  but  through  a  sudden  illumination  ; 
not  through  a  deepening  of  Judaism,  but  through  hreahing 
with  Judaism.  We  know  that  on  his  mission  to  the  Gentiles  — 
without  making  the  Gentiles  first  proselytes  to  Judaism  —  he 


THEOLOGICAL  UNDERSTANDING  PROPER.     867 

simply  and  immediately  converted  them  to  faith  in  Christ,  in 
which  he  himself  had  found  justification  before  God  and  peace, 
and  that  he  received  them  upon  this  their  faith,  without  further 
ceremony,  into  the  Christian  communion.  So  had  he  also  pro- 
claimed the  gospel  in  Galatia,  and  —  notwithstanding  the 
bodily  infirmity  under  which  he  labored  at  that  time  —  had 
found  joyful  acceptance  and  living  response  (Gal.  iv.  13-15). 
Kow  he  that  knows  what  it  costs  to  convert  men  to  Christ 
and  to  found  a  Christian  community  (see  Luther,  Com.  ad  I.  6), 
and  what  a  union  of  hearts  such  a  longing  for  souls  must  have 
produced  between  the  preacher  of  the  gospel  and  fhe  people, 
can  throw  himself  into  the  whole  pain  and  discomfiture  of  the 
former  when,  now,  others,  coming  under  the  pretence  of  a  better 
gospel  and  of  the  true  orthodoxy,  throw  suspicion  on  the  doctrine 
and  the  teacher  through  which  this  community  has  arrived  at 
the  saving  faith,  and  bring  forward,  now,  their  legal  observances 
and  burdens  as  the  conditio  salutis  :  Paul  has  to  do  not  merely 
with  a  conflict  of  views,  not  merely  with  a  question  of  the 
priority  of  activity,  but  with  the  paternal  relation  to  the  com- 
munity, nay,  with  the  most  sacred  experience  and  vital  certainty 
(Gal.  i.  11  ff.).  So,  then,  it  is  based  entirely  on  the  nature  of 
the  situation,  that  he  should  bring  home  to  the  hearts  of  his 
readers  this  certainty  of  his  as  a  fruit  of  the  decisive  epoch  of  his 
life,  as  a  work  of  God  in  himself,  which  has  made  itself  known 
as  such  through  the  miraculous  conversion  which  he  has  exjDe- 
ricnced  (i.  11-24).  But  because  his  opponents  appealed  to  the 
standard  authority  of  the  primitive  Apostles,  the  pillars  of  the 
church,  —  and  rightly  indeed,  so  far  as  the  essence  of  the 
point  of  view  is  concerned,  —  the  Apostle  has  now  the  task, 
as  the  need,  to  show  that  he  has  brought  about  a  recognition  of 
his  gospel  even  on  the  part  of  those  highly  esteemed  primitive 
Apostles,  i.e.  that  they  were  obliged  to  look  upon  his  mission 
to  the  Gentiles  as  divinely  justified,  and  to  recognize  the  equal 
validity  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  conversion  ;  and  that  he  him- 
self has  earnestly  reproved  Peter,  pillar  of  the  church  as  he 
was,  on  account  of   his   wavering.     The   latter   circumstance 


368  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

must  be  so  much  the  more  important  to  the  Apostle  by  as 
much  as,  there  as  here,  the  cardinal  question  at  stake  was, 
whether  salvation  depends  on  faith  in  Christ  or  on  the  obser- 
vance of  the  institutions  of  the  law.  To  him  that,  as  Paul,  has 
found  in  the  law  death,  and  in  faith  life,  a  return  to  the  law 
can  only  appear  a  renunciation  of  faith  —  an  apostasy  from 
Christ  (ii.  19-21).  But  finally,  to  the  Galatian  communicants 
themselves,  who  had  suffered  themselves  to  be  seduced  to  the 
legal  Christianity,  it  could  and  must  be  jDroved  that  the  legal 
religion  has  not  the  power  to  make  alive,  for  which  he  could 
appeal  to  his  own  experience  (iii.  1-5),  nor  the  true  sense  of 
the  Old  Testament  itself  (iii.  6  ff.),  nor  the  ground  and  aim  of 
God's  way  of  salvation  (iii.  15  ff.).  If  his  personal  experiences 
were  for  the  Apostle  himself  sufficient  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
his  gospel,  and  might  be  also  for  his  readers,  yet  the  relation 
demanded  that  it  should  be  demonstrated  to  them,  ad  hominem, 
how  ungrounded  and  wrong  was  their  turning  away  from  his 
gospel  to  the  legal  religion  ;  hence,  the  appeal  to  their  own 
religious  experience,  to  the  witness  of  the  Old  Testament,  hence 
the  explanation  of  the  whole  divine  plan  of  salvation,  and  of 
the  relation  of  the  law  thereto,  etc.  From  the 'state  of  faith 
and  of  grace  alone  could  the  Apostle  —  and  can  men  in 
general  —  win  this  insight  into  the  connection  of  the  counsel 
of  God,  i.e.  into  the  temporary  and  pedagogical  significance  of 
the  legal  religion.  Only  with //<zs  insight  and  explanation  are 
the  adversaries  completely  refuted,  and  the  superiority  of  the 
Pauline  gospel  over  that  of  the  adversaries  shown.  Thus  to 
him  that  can  sympathize  with  the  Apostle  is  the  interest  and 
the  importance  of  the  Pauline  deduction  in  the  Ei^istle  to  the 
Galatians  disclosed.. 
The  Epistle  But  how,  now,  is  it  with  the  Epistle  of  James  ?  how  can  the 
^™^'''  latter  teach  truth,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
is  true  ?  Must  not  the  Epistle  of  James  appear  of  necessity 
a  "  strawy  Epistle "  to  him  that  has  sympathetically  pene- 
How  the  tratcd  into  this  ?  The  difficulty  is  surmounted  partly  by  a 
surmounted  correct  historical  perception,  partly  by  a  ripe  religious  experi- 


THEOLOGICAL  TH.-DERSTANDING  PROPER.  3G9 

ence.  From  the  Synoptic  Gospels  it  follows  with  certainty 
that  the  Pauline  antithesis  of  the  works  of  the  law  and  faith 
was  entirely  foreign  to  Jesus,  in  that  to  him  the  Mosaic  law 
was  lost  in  the  pure  will  of  God,  and  that  he  also  distinguished 
the  Israelites  as  ''  the  children  of  the  kingdom  "  from  the  Gen- 
tiles. So  far,  therefore,  the  primitive  Apostles,  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, were  entirely  in  the  right  when  they  held  fast  to  the  essen- 
tial unity  of  Mosaism  and  Christianity.  Only  in  this  they 
remained  behind  the  Master,  that  he  had  recognized  the  priority 
of  the  i3eople  of  the  law  as  conditioned,  and  as  to  be  taken 
away  through  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  themselves ;  but  they 
maintained  this  priority  as  unconditioned,  and  did  not  see,  as  he 
did,  the  'decisive  factor  in  susceptibility  to  the  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  When  now,  Paul,  without  having  seen  and 
heard  the  Lord  himself,^  came  forward  with  his  gospel,  brought 
faith  into  prominence  in  opposition  to  the  law,  and  through 
his  immediate  acceptance  of  the  Gentiles  seemed  to  display  a 
depreciating  estimate  of  the  people  of  the  covenant,  they  could 
see  in  this  only  an  apostasy  from  the  true  religion.  Now,  of 
course,  it  was  very  possible  and  obvious  that,  where  there  was 
no  right  consciousness  of  sin  and  no  true  repentance,  Paulin- 
ism  should  degenerate  into  antijiomianism,  and  furnish  induce- 
ment to  a  moral  laxity  and  an  unfruitful  dogmatism.  This 
must  have  been  the  condition  of  the  readers  —  doubtless 
schooled  in  Paulinism-  —  of  this  Epistle.  No  wonder,  that 
this  Apostolic  man  felt  himself  impelled  to  enter  a  protest 
against  such  pseudo-Christianity,  and  to  bring  before  the  hearts 
of  his  readers  the  practical  Christianity  which  is  summed  up  in 
the  royal  com^mand  of  love.  It  is  really  an  often-confirmed 
fact,  that  lack  of  moral  earnestness  and  dependence  on  dog- 
matizing go  hand  in  hand,  and  that,  e.g.  the'  preaching  of 
justification  through  faith,  if  it  is  not  based  upon  repentance, 

1  That  is,  before  his  ascension.  —  Te. 

2  There  seems  to  be  some  frround  for  believing  that  the  Epistle  of  James 
was  written  vciy  early,  before  the  development  of  the  Pauline  theology. — 
Tu. 


870  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

ministers  to  an  antinomian  dogmatism.  lie  that  has  expe- 
rienced this  in  himself,  or  observed  it  in  others,  understands  the 
Epistle  of  James.  These  two  examples  may  suffice  to  show, 
that  only  the  union  of  the  exegetico-historical  study  with  a. 
profound  sympathy  with  the  biblical  author  leads  to  the  perfect 
understanding  of  Scripture. 

jS)  Impartation  of  the  Tlieological  Understanding  to  Others. 
(Cf.  I.  §7). 

14.    Essential    Elements. 

Just  as  only  he  possesses  the  right  understanding  of  his 
author  who  thinks  what  the  author  thousjht  and  as  he  thousfht 
it,  so  also  only  he  furnishes  correct  understanding  of  his  author, 
who  puts  the  hearers  in  a  condition  to  think  what  he  thought 
and  as  he  thought  it.  If  we  apply  this  proposition  to  the  ex- 
planation of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  clear,  that  the  interpreter 
can  only  then  introduce  others  into  the  complete  understanding 
of  Scripture  when  he  himself  is  in  possession  as  well  of  the 
scientilically  mediated  religious  understanding  as  also  of  the 
Eeligious      talent  for  exeoetical  teachino-.     We  are  concerned  especially 

understand-      .  ,      .  °  ,  ^     -,  .  ,  .  ,       / 

iiig  lire-       With   mipartation   to  learners  oj  the   science,  hence  with   the 

requisite  to         .        .  ^       ,      ,      .      ,    .  .  -,,.  .  ,  , 

religious  scientifc-theological  impartation.  Here  it  may  hapjien  that 
tiou?'^  "  one  exegetical  teacher  pays  attention  chiefly  to  the  philological 
in'  the  narrower  sense,  another  to  the  logical  combination  of 
thoughts,  a  third  to  the  real  features,  a  fourth  preponderatingly 
to  the  practical-religious  understanding.  There  is  little  objec- 
tion to  this,  provided  that  the  main  object  of  interpretation  does 
not  suffer  thereby.  But  with  regard  to  the  last-mentioned 
direction,  we  must  guard  earnestly  against  the  so-called  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  which  loads  the  thoughts  of  the  author 
with  pious  reflections,  and  thus  thinks  to  introduce  the  readers 
Pious refloc-  or  hearers  to  the  understanding  thereof.     This  is  not  interpret- 

tionsnotin-  .  ,     i      •         i  •  t  i  t  i  i  . 

terpretation  ing  the  author,  but  overwhelming  Iiim.  It  would  be  altogether 
perverse  if  such  reflections  should  be  thought  to  make  supei-flu- 
ous  the  scientific  ascertaining  of  the  sense,  and  "  spiritual "  Scrip- 
ture interpretation  should  be  put  in  the  place  of  this  as  the 


IMPAETATION  TO  THEOLOGICAL  UNDERSTANDING.     371 

so-called  worldly  interpretation.  No  interpretation,  however 
pious  and  spiritual  it  may  be,  is  worth  anything  if  it  be  not 
based  on  scientific  exegetical  work  ;  for  only  this  proceeds  from 
the  earnest  and  upright  intention  to  understand  and  to  make  in- 
telligible the  author.     The  hearers  also  should  be  convinced  Conscien- 

^      .  .  •11     tious  work 

and  know  that  the  understanding  of  Scripture    is    attainable  the  only 
no  otherwise  than  through  conscientious  work.     On  the  other  the  true  un- 
hand also,  the  exegete  who  imparts  to  his  hearers  only  matter  of  scripture 
pertaining  to  textual  criticism,  grammar,  and  archaeology  can- 
not boast  of  having  explained  the  author  to  them,  and  of  hav- 
ing introduced  them  into  the  author's  sense  and  spirit.     The 
biblical  author  meant  to  impart  thoughts,  and  to  bring  about  a 
relifjious  effect,  and  such  also  should  be  the  aim  of  the  biblical 
interpreter.     Only  then  can  he  regard  his  exegetical  work  as 
complete,  when  it  has  reached,  as  its  end  and  result,  the  religious 
understanding  on  the  part  of  the  hearers.     Only  let  nobody 
suppose  that  this  is  attainable  through  pious  talking,  or  that  it 
is  something  apart.     The  interpreter  must  have  so  identified 
himself  with  the  spirit  of  his  author,  that  his  exegetical  dis- 
course —  without  many  religious  words  —  may  make  upon  the 
susceptible  hearer  the  impression  designed  to  be  received  from 
the  religious  spirit  of  the  author.     Nowhere  is  laconicism,  as  Laconicism 
it  is  found,  e.g.  in  Bengel's  Gnomon,  better  applied  than  here,  place. 
The  religious  thought  must  fall  into  the  bosom  of  the  hearer  as 
the  ripe  fruit,  so  to  speak,  of  the  exegetical  work. 

15.    Method  of  Procedure. 

The  exegetical  discourse   must  be  as  much  as  possible  an 

unfoldinq.     The  inductive  method  alone  is  here  suitable.     The  The  induc- 

.  tivemetliod 

interpreter  must  cause  the  thought  of  the  author  to  arise  grad-  alone  suit- 

ually  before  the  eyes  of  his  hearers,  and  must  never  lose  .sight 

of  the  aim  —  the  understanding  of  the  author.     It  is,  indeed, 

natural  that  one  exegete  should  pay  chief  attention  to  textual 

criticism,  another  to  the  linguistic  features,  a  third  to  the  logical 

course  of  thought,  a  fourth  to  the  historical  and  real,  another, 

finally,  to  the  religious  and  practical  aspect,  and  should  treat 

his  speciaUty  the  most  exhaustively  and  with  the  most  concern. 


treatment. 


872  RELIGIOUS   UNDERSTANDING. 

To  this  there  is  no  objection ;  only  the  principal  matter  or  the 

aim  with  regard  to  the  passage  under  consideration  must  not 

be  lost  sight  of  ;  not  simply  because  the  hearers  have  a  right 

to  expect  that  this  chiefly  is  given  to  them,  but  also  because 

Specialties    the   object   of    exegesis    itself    demands   it.     Specialties  such 

titiabie.        as    those  named   have    always    had   their    perfect   right,   and 

find,  as  heretofore,  their  proper  place.      On  the  other  hand, 

there  may  be  occasions  in  the  text  itself  through  which  one  is 

tempted  to  lose  sight  of  the  aim  of  the  explanation  :  such  are 

especially  dijicult  or  disputed  passages,  as  John  viii.  25  ;  xviii. 

Passas^es      28;  Rom.  V.  7;  Gal.  iii.  19,  20;  James  iv.  5.     That  such  pas- 

tiiat  require 

special         sa^cs  require  a  more  searchini^  treatment,  is  self-evident :  yet 

thorough.        ,  *  .  -^  n         ^-  ^.  ,         .  '     .    , 

ness  of  the  mterpreter  must  confine  himself  to  what  is  most  essential, 
if  he  would  not  thereby  injure  the  connection  too  much ;  unless 
he  has  laid  down  as  his  object  the  special  explanation  of  such  a 
passage.  It  is  otherwise  with  longer  passages,  which  form  by 
themselves,  as  it  were,  a  whole,  as  Luke  xvi.  1  ff.,  19  ff.  ;  Rom. 
V.  12-21  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  1-11  ;  Phil.  ii.  5-11.  To  say  nothing  of 
the  fact  that  such  passages  claim  an  independent  treatment,  and 
are  treated  independently  (cf.  among  others  R.  Rothe's  excel- 
lent explanation  of  Rom.  v.  12-21),  the  understanding  of  such 
a  passage  is  an  essential  part  of  the  understanding  of  Scripture 
in  general.  But  passages  also  that  are  not  precisely  difficult, 
but  are  important  for  the  understanding  of  the  author  in  ques- 
tion, require  a  more  elaborate  treatment.  Passages  of  this 
kind  are  Rom.  iii.  21-31  ;  viii.  1-4;  1  Cor.  xii.  1-11  ;  2  Cor. 
iii.  12-18;  Gal.  ii.  1-10,  11-21,  et  al.  In  such  eases  the  exe- 
getical  apparatus,  properly  sifted,  and  in  greater  completeness, 
is  to  be  brought  into  application.  Whether  the  religious  con- 
tents is  to  be  made  prominent  in  a  special  way  or  not  depends 
on  the  nature  of  the  public,  and  on  the  object  had  in  view. 
16.  Impartation  to  an  unlearned  Audience. 
Apart  from  the  scientific,  the  interpreter  may  pursue  a  purely 
practical,  object.  This  is  naturally  the  case  with  a  public  in 
great  part  unlearned  and  promiscuous,  i.e.  with  Christian 
churches.     That  here  all  impaitation  of  learned  apparatus  is  to 


IMPARTATION  OF  THEOLOGICAL  UNDERSTANDING.   373 

be  dispensed  with  has  already  been  said  (I.  §  7),  and  is  self- 
evident.     But  he  that  would  infer  from  this  that  for  a  prac-  rreparation 
,    f,,     .  .  .  .        .  ^  .  ^  as  necessary 

tical  bcnpture  interpretation  no  scientinc  equipment  and  pre- for  ex- 
paration  is  requisite  would  find  himself  in  a  great  error.     The  scripture  to 
practical  as  well  as  the  scientific  interpreter  of  Scripture  has  cated"as  to 
to  set  forth  the  sense  of  Scripture,  which  is  always  the  same,  cated."" 
The  difference  between  the  two  consists  not  in  the  fact  that  the 
subject  is  different,  but  in  the  fact  that  the  scientific  mediation 
is  given  in  the  one  place,  in  the  other  withheld,  and  that  there 
the  religious  sense  and  contents  are  rather  assumed,  here  they 
are  imparted  ex  professo.     The  more  thoroughly  the  practical 
theologian  is  versed  in  the  study  of  Scripture,  and  the  more 
maturely  he  has  wrought  out  the  passage  of  Scripture  in  ques- 
tion, the  better  and  more  practical,  under  the  j^resupposition  of 
adequate  religious  knowledge  of  men  and  aptness  to  teach,  will 
be  his -exposition.     Not  Scripture  as  such,  it  is  true,  but  the 
word  of  God  in  Scripture,  is  the  preacher  to  bring  near  to  his 
hearers,  and  he  must  continually  be  mindful  of  the  purposes 
for  which  Scripture  was  given  us  (2  Tim.  iii.  IG).     The  more 
he  himself  lives  therein,  the  better  will  he  teach  and  preach  ; 
and  the  more  he  identifies  himself  with  his  hearers  the  less 
tiresome  and  the  more    practical  will  be  his  discourse.      But  How  the 
he  can  identify  himself  with  his  hearers  not  on  the  ground  of  identiifeV^ 
his  scientifically  acquired  theological  stand-point,  but  only  on  hearers? 
the  common  need  of  salvation.     Yet  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that 
the  theological  knowledge  of  the  preacher  may  come  in  conflict 
with  the  popular  y<:/z7A  of  his  church.     I  call  attention  only  to  Method  of 
cases  where  he  runs  upon  mistakes  in  the  ecclesiastical  (resp.  with  errors 
Lutheran)  translation  of  the  Bible  ;  where  spurious  passages  tioii^  f^pWi- 
occur  in  the  ecclesiastical  text;  where  passages  that  are  evi- pagesfetc , 
dently  legendary  are  found  ;  where  differences  of  the  doctrinal  t'horized" 
conception  of  the  authors  are  not  to  be  overlooked.     The  wis-  '^^'"'^*<^^- 
dom  of  the  preacher  and  carer  for  souls,  who  understands  the 
state  of  the  case,  will    yet  easily  overcome  these  difficulties, 
simply  correctirig  the  evident  faults  of  the  Bible  tran  .lation, 
passing  over  the  spurious  passages  (esp.  1  John  v.  7),  leaving 
32 


874  RELIGIOUS  UNDERSTANDING. 

untouched  others  (as  John  viii.  1-11,  which  passage  is  spurious, 
indeed,  but  historically  in  no  way  incredible)  for  the  sake  of 
this  latter  reason,  and  finally  letting  stand  likewise  other  pas- 
sages (as  the  doxology,  Matt.  vi.  13),  which  are,  as  it  were, 
ecclesiastically  sanctioned,  —  since  we  have  to  do  here  not 
with  a  theological,  but  simply  with  a  religious  understanding. 
More  difficult  is  the  treatment  of  such  passages  as  obtrude 
themselves  upon  the  theologian  as  unhistorical,  as  the  Evan- 
gelium  infantiac,  part  of  the  history  of  the  Resurrection,  and 
others.  But  this  subject  is  not  at  all  appropriate  for  discussion 
before  the  church,  but  is  rather  to  be  treated  in  private  con- 
versations, while  in  public  discourse  not  the  history  as  such, 
but  the  ideal  contents  of  the  narrative  is  to  be  impressed  upon 
the  hearts  of  the  hearers.  In  general  in  such  cases  we  are 
to  proceed  rather  positively  than  negatively,  since  for  the 
olaoSofjL-^  of  the  individuals  and  of  the  church,  and  not  in  the 
first  instance  for  the  enlightening  of  the  same,  is  he  there.^ 
Method  of  But  how  is  it  with  the  doctrinal  differences  ?  The  hearers 
with  popu-  in  general,  such  especially  as  have  been  schooled  in  orthodoxy, 
ical  errors!"  regard  the  Scriptures  as  an  organic  whole,  equally  inspired 
in  all  its  parts,  while  the  educated  theologian  must  regard 
this  notion  as  erroneous.  In  general  the  preacher  will  rarely 
have  occasion  to  enter  upon  tliese  differences.  It  is  a  mis- 
take in  any  case,  e.g.  to  explain  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
or  a  passage  from  John  in  a  Pauline  way.  Each  passage  is 
rather  to  be  explained  from  its  connection  and  from  the  spirit 
of  the  writer,  to  whom  it  belongs.  Should  the  practical  ex- 
positor find  it  necessary  or  to  his  purpose  to  refer  to  the  diverse 
doctrine,  he  should  do  this  only  in  the  conclusion,  and  should 
show  how  the  two  are  related  to  each  other,  how  they  may  be 
explained  historically,  and  how  they  are  resolvable  into  a 
higher  third  doctrine.  Yet  this  can  occur  only  before  a  very 
cultured  audience.  It  depends  here  in  general  upon  the  nature 
of  the  audience,  upon  their  culture  and  their  religious  position. 

1  Is  ot/coSojuT]  necessarily  an  antithesis  of  "enli^ihteninjr,  instructing;"  ? 
This  latter  seems  really  to  be  an  essential  element  of  the  former.  —  Tr. 


IMPARTATION  OF  THEOLOGICAL  UNDERSTANDING.   375 

The  better  the  preacher  knows  these  the  more  certain  will  he 
be  to  steer  aright  in  all  such  cases. 

17.   Kinds  of  Practical  Impartation. 

The    practical    treatment    of    Scripture  .is   manifold :  Bible  Bible 
,.       .  .     .  .      -.  .  •     1       .  .11     meditation. 

meditation,  as  it  is  exercised  in  narrower  circles,  is  most  closely 

connected  with  exegesis  proper.  Here,  of  course,  the  sense 
and  the  course  of  thought  of  the  sacred  author  are  the  princi- 
pal thing.  With  this  in  view  the  interpreter  must  have  so 
penetrated  into  the  author,  that  the  latter  has  become  as  well 
exegeticallj  and  historically  clear  to  him  as  also  religiously 
vivid.  But  because  the  practical  interpreter  must  aim  with  his 
explanation  of  the  Bible  at  a  single  impression,  he  has  to  sum 
up  in  the  conclusion,  as  the  final  theme,  the  interpretation  in  a 
principal  thought  The  same  holds  true  of  the  so-called  horn-  Homilies. 
ilies^  in  which  the  passage  of  Scripture  is  to  be  well  pondered 
according  to  its  course  of  thought  and  organism,  as  well  as  ac- 
cording to  its  relation  to  the  hearers  and  the  present.  It  is  other- 
wise w^ith  the  sermon  proper.  It  has,  indeed,  also  already  been  Sermons, 
asked,  whether  the  sermon  is  to  be  essentially  Scripture  interpre- 
tation or  the  synthetical  treatment  of  a  single  thought.  The 
question  is  to  be  decided  in  the  latter  sense,  inasmuch  as  here, 
where  as  a  rule  the  church  is  assembled  and  the  moment  a 
solemn  one,  still  more  than  in  the  foregoing  cases,  a  single 
arousing  impression  is  to  be  made.  Only  the  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture and  its  exposition  must  be  the  means  to  this  end.     The  The  text 

,  .111-     iiot  to  be 

text  must  never  be  a  mere  pre-iext^  since  the  preacher,  as  his  made  a  mere 
hearers,  is  to  proceed  from  the  presupposition  that  the  word  of 
God  in  the  Scriptures  is  a  word  for  all  time  and  for  all  essen- 
tial ethical-religious  needs.  The  theme  must,  therefore,  invaria- 
bly be  derived  from  the  text  itself.  The  difference,  never  of 
course  to  be  underestimated,  between  the  relations  of  the  New 
Testament  time  and  those  of  the  present  demands,  indeed,  the 
reduction  of  the  biblical  thought  to  the  thought  of  the  present. 
Very  often,  therefore,  what  the  author  has  said  with  reference 
to  a  special  relation  of  his  time  must  be  generalized,  and  this 
general  thought  must  again  be  specialized  in  reference  to  the 


876 


RELIGIOUS   UNDERSTANDING. 


The  laic 
conscious- 
ness. 


relations  of  the  present.  Yet  will  the  deeper  and  finer  refer- 
ences of  the  Scripture  word  to  the  needs  of  the  present  furnish 
themselves  so  much  the  more  unsought  to  him  that  has  rightly 
penetrated  into  the  Scriptures. 

18.   Conclusion. 

In  the  practical  treatment  of  the  Bible  the  scientific-theo- 
logical understanding  of  Scripture  is  reconciled  with  the  laic 
consciousness.     From  this  we  proceeded  conceiving  of  it,  as  w^e 
did,  as  desiring  to  learn  and  to  understand ;  then  we  showed 
how  this  willing  to  understand  becomes  through  the  exeget- 
ical  work  ability  to  understand :  and  finally,  v/e    have  given 
a  hint  as  to  how  the  scientific  understanding  acquired  through 
study  becomes    religious   for  the  interpreter  himself  and  for 
Summary     others.     AccordinHv,  the  exes:etical  work  is         1)  a  purely 
of  thoexe-  scientific  work,  which  is  itself  law,  and  as  such  it  has  for  its 
work.  object         a)   not  only  the  understanding   of    Scripture   con- 

sidered in  a  purely  historical  way,  but  it  furnishes  also  /5) 
the  material  for  biblical  philology,  for  the  history  of  primitive 
Christianity,  and  for  biblical  theology  ;  2)  the  exegetical 
work  is  also  a  'practical  work,  and  rests  as  such  on  scientific 


Correlation 
of  the  scien- 
tific and 
practical 
treatment 
of  Scripture 


Through   this  process   the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament  is 
made  serviceable  to  the   Christian  church,  and  the  church  is% 
built  up  on  the  words  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.     The  scien- 
tific and  the  practical  treatment  must  always  join  hands  ;  for 
neither  is  at  present  a  sound  and  substantial  understanding  of 
Scripture  possible  without  thorough  scientific  investigation,  nor 
is  a  correct  theological  understanding  possible  without  practical 
sympathy  and  without  a  living    appropriation  of  the  biblical 
Preaching  a  thouglits  and  truths.     The  mediation  between  the  scientific  and 
bot\v?on  the  the   practical  understanding  of    Scripture  is  preacliinfj.     But 
am?'t/ie*^      this  presupposes  the  mediation  of  the  two  in  the  heart  of  the 
umlerstand-  pfcachcr,  i.e.  the  theological  understanding.     But  the  organism 
'°^'  of  the  Christian  clinrch  also  presupposes  the  variety  of  xaptc- 

/xara  and  the  suitable  activity  of  the  same,  and  this  in  such  a 
manner  that  some  busy  themselves   preponderatingly  and  ex 


IMPARTATION  OF  THEOLOGICAL  UNDERSTANDING.   377 

professo  with  the  scientific,  and  some  chiefly  with  the  practical 
treatment  of  Scripture :  and  just  as  the  practical  interpretation 
of  Scripture  in  turn  will  be  with  one  more  a  prophetic  inter- 
pretation, with  another  more  a  didactic,  and  again  with  others 
more  a  parenetic,  so  the  scientific  treatment  of  Scripture 
divides  itself  again  into  a  more  critical,  or  philological,  or  his- 
torical, or  doctrinal.  Each  has  its  right  in  the  organism  of  the 
sciences  and  in  the  organism  of  the  Christian  church  itself. 
Just  as  mutual  interchange  and  harmonious  co-operation  of  the 
various  branches  of  science  cannot  but  be  advantageous  to  these 
branches,  so  the  health  of  the  Christian  church  depends  essen- 
tially upon  the  mutual  confidence  and  harmonious  co-operation 
of  men  of  theological  science  and  men  of  theological  praxis. 


^r 


y-,'r  / 


APPENDIX. 


The  following  summary  of  the  leading  peculiarities  of  New 
Testament  Greek  Grammar  is  from  notes  taken  upon  the  class 
lectures  of  Prof  John  A.  Broadus,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  the  Southern 
Baptist  Theological  Seminary.  Dr.  Broadus  has  been  a  life-long 
and  critical  student  of  New  Testament  Greek,  and  has  a  treasury 
of  valuable  grammatical  notes,  which  it  is  hoped  he  will  at  no  very 
distant  day  find  occasion  to  publish.  While  Dr.  Broadus  kindly 
granted  permission  to  use  the  notes  here  presented,  he  is  not  in 
any  way  responsible  for  the  translation.  —  Tk. 

SUMMAEY  or  THE  LEADING  PECULIAEITIES  OF  NEW. 

TESTAMENT  GEEEK  GRAMMAE. 

From  the  Notes  of  Prof.  John  A.  Broadus,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

The  sources  of  peculiarity  are /our : 

1.  The  basis  is  later  Greek,  chiefly  in  the  colloquial  form.  This 
affects  both  words  and  constructions. 

2.  The  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  tinge,  which  arises  partly  from 
reading  Hebrew,  and  partly  from  speaking  Aramaic.  This  affects, 
1)  words,  2)  constructions. 

3.  Latin  words  and  phrases,  not  affecting  the  Syntax,  but  only 
introducing  a  certain  number  of  new  words  and  phrases,  imitated 
in  the  Greek. 

4.  New  meanings  of  words,  and  new  compounds,  to  express  new 
Christian  ideas.  (Peculiarities  more  largely  lexical  than  gram- 
matical). 

A.     PECULIARITIES  AS  TO  FORMS. 
See  Winer,  and  the  additions  in  Moulton's  translation. 
878 


APPENDIX.  379 

B.    PECULIARITIES  AS  TO   SYNTAX. 
1.    The  Article, 

1.  Frequent  omission  of  the  Article  when  an  appended  Genitive 
makes  the  phrase  sufficiently  definite.  This  is  an  imperfect  Hebra- 
ism. It  accords  with  the  following :  the  Article  must  be  omitted 
in  Hebrew,  when  there  is  what  is  equivalent  to  a  Genitive,  etc. 
Hence  this  is  only  partly  conformed  to  Hebrew  usage. 

2.  Omission  of  the  Article  with  a  Noun  made  definite  by  usage, 
as,  e.g.  •TTvev/xa,  ypa(jirj,  k.  t.  \.,  especially  when  preceded  by  a  Prep- 
osition. This  is  a  mere  extension  of  the  Classical  usage,  and  is 
not  a  Hebraistic  peculiarity.     Cf  crcXiji/Ty,  .y^,  k.  t.  X. 

3.  Again,  Attributive  clauses  (Prep,  with  Noun)  are  often  appen- 
ded to  a  Noun  without  repeating  the  Article.  This  usage  is  not 
found  in  Attic.  Here  the  natural  relation,  or  the  known  facts, 
must  suggest  the  attributive  force. 

4.  Finally,  €ts  is  used  in  a  few  instances  where  it  is  scarcely  dis- 
tinguishable from  the  English  Indefinite  Article. 

^.   As  to  the  Pronouns, 

1.  The  Personal  Pronoun,  in  the  Nominative,  is  used  more  freely 
and  thus  with  less  emphasis.  Its  absence  may  be  strongly  insisted 
on  as  showing  that  there  is  no  emphasis;  but  its  presence  more 
cautiously  as  indicative  of  emphasis,  because  of  its  freer  use  in  the 
New  Testament. 

2.  The  use  of  auTo's  in  the  Nominative.    See  Winer  and  Buttmann. 

3.  A  Hebraistic  use,  by  which  we  have  a  Relative  followed  by 
a  Personal  Pronoun  later  in  the  sentence.  This  is  very  rare  in 
Classic  writers. 

4.  In  general,  the  Personal  and  Demonstrative  Pronouns  are 
often  employed  for'  the  sake  of  explicitness  and  circumstantiality 
where  the  earlier  Greek  would  omit  them  as  unnecessary. 

S.   As  to  dozens  i Substantives), 

1.  The  Dual  is  not  used. 

2.  The  Nominative  is  often  used  in  addresses,  like  the  Vocative. 

3.  The  Genitive  of  quality  is  often  used  instead  of  an  Adjective. 
Imperfect  Hebraism. 

4.  The  Preposition  is  oflen  added  to  a  case,  where  Classical 
Greek  would  have  the  case  alone. 


380  APPENDIX. 

Jj..   As  to  the  Verb. 

1.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Perfect  and  the  Aorist  are  ever 
confounded  in  the  New  Testament.  Winer  admits  such  confusion 
in  two  or  three  cases  of  the  use  of  the  Perfect,  but  in  none  of  them 
is  it  a  necessary  supposition,  and  of  course  we  should  shrink  from 
such  an  acknowledgment  unless  necessary.  The  confusion  is  all 
due  to  our  use  of  the  Perfect  where  the  Greek  prefers  the  Aorist. 
(Notice  Paul's  use  of  the  Aorist). 

2.  'Iva  and  the  Subjunctive  is  frequently  used  in  what  is  called 
the  suhfinal  sense.  This  appears  to  have  been  an  early  Greek 
usage,  intermitted  in  the  Classical  period  and  revived  in  later 
Greek.  It  is  never  used  (in  the  New  Testament)  in  the  Eventual 
or  Echatic  sense.  In  the  common  final  (Telic)  sense  it  is  sometimes 
used  with  the  Indicative  Future,  and .  even  with  the  Indicative 
Present. 

3.  The  Optative  is  but  little  employed.  Scarcely  even  in  the 
oratio  obliqua. 

4.  The  use  of  tov  -j-  the  Infinitive  is  frequent  and  varied, — much 
more  so  than  in  Classical  Greek. 

5.  So  the  Infinitive,  in  oblique  cases,  governed  by  a  Preposition  is 
much  more  frequent  than  in  Classical  Greek.  An  imperfect  Hebra- 
ism, being  very  rare  in  Classical,  very  common  in  New  Testament 
Greek. 

.6.  The  use  of  the  Particle  av  is  less  copious  and  diversified,  and 
it  is  never  used  with  the  Participle. 

7.  The  Future  tense  is  more  frequently  employed  in  commands 
and  prohibitions.     An  imperfect  Hebraism. 

8.  The  Future  Participle  is  rarely  employed  to  express  purpose. 
This  is  a  favorite  Classical  construction. 

9.  Peculiar  use  of  eyevwo  followed  by  an  Accusative  +  Infinitive, 
by  OTL  +  Indicative,  and  even  by  the  Indicative  without  ort.  An 
imperfect  —  though  almost  perfect  —  Hebraism.  Cf  ^in^^ .  Rare 
and  strange  in  Classical  Greek. 

5.    As  to  Prepositions. 

1.  Verbs  compounded  with  Prepositions  are  more  used,  and  the 
Preposition  is  more  frequently  repeated  after  a  compound  Verb. 

2.  Further,  Iv  is  oftener  used  of  means  or  instrument.     Imperfect 


APPENDIX.  881 

Hebraism.  Also  a  greater  abundance  of  figurative  significations  of 
cv,  as  '  sphere/  '  elem6nt,'  '  ground,'  etc.  This  is  partly  of  Hebrew 
and  partly  of  Christian  origin,     (a  and  Paul's  Iv  XpLo-rio,  etc.). 

6.   As  to  Conjunctions. 

1.  Kat  is  often  used  where  Classical  Greek  would  have  a  more 
distinctive  Conjunction.  This  is  an  imperfect  Hebraism  in  part,  and 
partly  due  to  the  general  tendency  of  simple  colloquial  style  in  all 
languages.     (Notice 'the  children,  "  and and  ....  and,"  etc.). 

2.  "Apa  is  more  used ;  is  stronger,  and  not  necessarily  postpositive. 

3.  A  number  of  Conjunctions  used  in  Classical  Greek  to  express 
nice  distinctions  are  not  used  in  the  New  Testament. 

7.   As  to  Adverts. 

1 .  A  peculiar  use  of  ttSs  followed  at  an  interval  by  ov.  A 
Hebraism. 

2.  A  more  frequent  use  of  ov  In  Conditional  phrases. 

3.  Ov  less  frequently  used  with  Participles,  and  not  at  all  with 
the  Infinitive. 

8.   As  to  the  Structure  of  Sentences. 

Anacolutha  are  somewhat  frequent,  particularly  in  Paul ;"  but  not 
more  so  than  in  Classical  writers. 

There  are  various  irregularities  in  the  Apocalypse,  partly  Hebra- 
istic ;  partly  colloquial ;  and  partly  due  to  the  intense  passion  which 
leads  the  writer  to  forget  grammar. 

The  peculiarities  are  mostly  those  of  words  and  phrases,  i.e. 
Lexical. 

It  is  Important  to  know  these  facts  as  to  the  peculiarities  of  New 
Testament  Greek, 

1.  For  Scientific  reasons  :  correct  exegesis,  etc. 

2.  For  Controversial  reasons :  the  New  Testament  not  a  distinct 
dialect,  etc.,  but  to  be  treated  according  to  the  rules  of  Classical 
Greek. 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES 
EXPLAINED. 


1.  Passages  Treated  in  a  Text-critical  Way, 


FAOE 

FAOX 

Matt.  i.  25, 

123 

Luke  xxiii.  46, 

120 

Matt.  V.  11, 

112 

Luke  xxiii.  63, 

122 

Matt.  V.  22, 

112 

Matt.  V.  28, 

121 

John  i.  28, 

114 

Matt.  vi.  13, 

110,117 

John  V.  4, 

112 

Matt.  viii.  28  and  Par., 

115 

John  vii.  8, 

113 

Matt.  XV.  32, 

121 

John  vii.  53-viii.  11, 

111 

Matt,  xxviii.  19, 

123 

John  xvii.  2,  3, 

122 

John  xix.  14, 

118 

Mark  i.  2, 

116 

Mark  i.  16, 
Mark  ii.  7, 
Mark  ii.  26, 

119 
120 
116 

Eom.  viii.  1, 
Rom.  ix.  27, 

112 
120 

Mark  iii.  16, 

122 

Rom.  ix.  33, 

120 

Mark  iv.*6, 

119 

Mark  ix.  23, 

116,  122 

1  Cor.  XV.  51, 

114,  123 

Mark  ix.  26. 

122 

Mark  xvi.  9  ff.. 

110 

Gal.  ii.  5, 

118,  122 

Luke  xi.  4, 

117 

1  John  V.  7, 

110 

2.  Passages  Explained  Exegetically, 

Matt.  i.  1-17, 

280 

Matt.  X.  24, 

150 

Matt.  i.  23, 

172 

Matt.  xi.  25, 

158 

Matt.  ii.  15, 

173 

Matt.  xii.  33, 

158 

Matt.  iii.  3  f., 

167 

Matt.  xiii.  3-8, 

233 

Matt,  v.-vii. 

235 

Matt.  xiii.  14,  15, 

169 

Matt.  V.  3-12, 

207 

Matt.  xiii.  16,  17, 

165 

Matt.  V.  25,  26, 

149 

Matt.  xiii.  44, 

232 

Matt.  vi.  22,  23, 

149 

Matt.  xvi.  17-19, 

14e 

Matt.  vii.  1-14, 

208 

Matt.  xix.  24, 

163 

Matt.  vii.  6, 

157 

Matt.  XX.  1-16, 

224 

Matt.  vii.  7-11, 

164 

Matt.  xxi.  33  ff.. 

224 

Matt.  vii.  13,  14, 

164 

Matt.  xxii.  1  ff.. 

222 

Matt.  vii.  16-20, 

144 

Matt.  xxii.  16, 

233 

Matt.  vii.  21  ff.. 

165 

Matt.  xxii.  31,  32, 

169 

Matt.  viii.  28  f.,  Par., 

267 

Matt.  xxiv.  and  Par., 
883 

164,  252 

884       INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES   EXPLAINED. 


Matt.  XXV.  14  ff., 

222 

Acts  XV.  and  Gal 

Matt.  xxvi.  17  and  Par., 

276 

James  i.  3, 

Luke  ii.  1  f.. 

278 

James  i.  17, 

Luke  iii.  1, 

274 

James  iv.  5, 

Luke  iii.  2, 

279 

Luke  iii.  23. 

280 

1  Pet.  i.  7, 

Lukeiv.  18-22, 

167 

1  Pet.  ii.  5 

Luke  vi.  20  flf.. 

235 

Luke  vi.  40, 

150 

1  John  iii.  20, 

Luke  vii.  47, 

147 

Luke  viii.  10, 

170 

Rom.  i.  17, 

Luke  X.  2.3,  24, 

165 

Rom.  V.  7, 

Luke  X.  30-37, 

223 

Rom.  V.  12  ff., 

Luke  xi.  9  ff., 

164 

Rom.  vii.  7-24, 

Luke  xi.  34  ff.. 

149 

Rom.  ix.  15, 

Luke  xii.  58,  59, 

149 

Rom.  ix.-xi.. 

Luke  xiii.  25  ff , 

165 

Rom.  xi.  2-4, 

Lukexiv.  16  ff.. 

222 

Rom.  xi.  33, 

Luke  xiv.  26, 

163 

Rom.  xiv.  23, 

Luke  XV.  1  Iff.,     223,229, 

231,233 

Luke  xvi.  1-8,              155, 

226,  232 

1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17, 

Luke  xvi.  13, 

155 

1  Cor.  vii.  16, 

Luke  xvi.  15-18, 

207 

1  Cor.  ix.  9, 

Luke  xvi.  19  ff.,           156, 

224,  229 

1  Cor.  X.  4, 

John  i.  18, 

204 

Gal.  ii.  14-21, 

John  i.  28, 

266 

Gal.  iii.  16, 

John  iii.  1-21, 

210 

Gal.  iii.  19,  20, 

John  iv.  37, 

160 

Gal.  iv.  22  ff.. 

John  V.  19  ff., 

213 

Gal.  vi.  8, 

John  V.  25, 

153 

John  vi.  26  ff.. 

239 

Phil.  ii.  6-8, 

John  vi.  57, 

182 

John  viii.  SI  ff.. 

214 

2  Thess.  ii.  1-12 

John  viii.  37, 

161 

John  ix.  39, 

160 

Heb.  X.  22, 

John  X.  11  ff.. 

234 

Heb.  xii.  26,  27, 

John  xiii.  16, 

1.50 

John  XV.  1-6, 

234 

Rev.  xiii.  18, 

John  xviii.  28, 

281 

Rev.  xvii.  9-11, 

277 

152 

153,  160 

179 

152 
163 


179 

170 
178 
190 
242 
173 
173 
168 
160 
146 

152 
181 
175 
175 

216 
174 
192 
175 
181 

205 

257 

160 
174 

334 
333 


153, 


Note. — This  Index,  it  will  be  observed,  includes  only  those  passages 
that  are  treated  at  some  length,  and  hence  by  no  means  all  that  are  touched 
upon  or  referred  to.  —  Tb. 


GENERAL    INDEX. 

PREPARED    BY   THE   TRANSLATOR. 


Abarbanel,  a  Jewish  interpreter,  39. 

Abbot,  E.,  Article  by,  referred  to, 
70 ;  estimate  of,  as  a  text-critic, 70. 

Abbreviation  as  a  source  of  corrup- 
tion of  tlie  text  of  the  N.  T.,  107. 

Aben-Ezra,  a  Jewish  interpreter,  39. 

Acuteness,  excessive,  a  source  of 
error  in  the  excgetical  judgment, 
197. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  linguistic  pe- 
culiarities of,  142  f. ;  intention  of, 
324  fF. ;  apparent  discrepancies  be- 
tween, and  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
325 ;  a  defence  of  the  Pauline 
mission  to  the  Gentiles,  326. 

Affinity  between  interpreter  and 
author  necessary,  8,  92. 

Alexandrian  School  of  Scripture 
interpretation,  31  f. 

Allegorical  interpretation,  motive 
of,  29  ;  among  the  Alexandrian 
and  Palestinian  Jews,  29  ;  traces 
of,  in  the  N.  T.  writers,  30; 
Clement,  Origen,  Cyril,  and  Ath- 
anasius  representatives  of,  31  f. ; 
its  elements  of  truth  and  error, 
84  f. 

Allegory,  N.  T.,  ground  and  nature 
of,  176  f. 

Amersvoordt,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, 80. 

Angelology  fully  developed  among 
the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
294. 

Anthropomorphisms  and  anthro- 
popathisms  in  the  Bible,  idea  of, 
303  ff. 

Antiochian  school  of  Scripture  in- 
terpretation, 32  f. ;  barrenness  of, 
33  ;  influence  of,  on  the  Syrian 
and  Byzantine  schools,  34. 


Apocalypse,  the  Johannean,  motive 
of,  20  ;  Luther's  estimate  of,  20 ; 
why  the  Eastern  church  became 
estranged  from,  21 ;  linguistic  pe- 
culiarities of,  139  f. ;  intention  of, 
330  fF. ;  historical  basis  of,  332  fF. 

Apologctical  interpretation,  the,  its 
elements  of  truth  and  error,  88  f. 

Aquinas,  Thos.,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  37. 

Aretius,  Benedict,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  42. 

Arguments,  kinds  of,  employed  in 
the  N.  T.,  200  f. 

Arminian  exegesis,  48  f. 

Athanasius  referred  to,  22  ;  position 
of,  as  an  interpreter,  32. 

Auberlen,  theological  position  of, 
77  f. 

Augustine,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, .35  ;  evil  influence  of, 
through  his  "  fourfold  sense  "  of 
Scripture,  35. 

Authors,  biblical,  not  mere  organs, 
26 ;    individualities   of,   26 ;    de- 

'  pendent  in  part  on  tradition,  27  ; 
never  suspected  that  they  were 
writing  for  remote  posterity,  27. 

Awakening,  the  religious,  of  1813, 
63. 

Bacon,  Roger,  his  acquaintance  with 
Greek  and  Hebrew,  37. 

Baptist  Quarterly,  articles  in,  re- 
ferred to,  68,  111. 

Barnabas,  the  Epistle  of,  early  re- 
garded as  canonical  by  some,  20  f. 

Barsumas,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 34. 

Baur,  F.  C,  and  the  later  Tubin- 
gen school,  74  f. 
885 


386 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Bede,  the  Ven.,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  36  f. 

Bengel,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 47 ;  compared  with  Calvin, 
47  f .  ;  as  a  text-criric,  48. 

Beza,  Th.,  position  of  as  an  inter- 
preter, 43. 

Bible  (see  Scriptures). 

Bibliotheea  Sacra,  articles  in,  re- 
ferred to,  68,  104,  127,  129. 

Bleek,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 
67  ;  treatise  of,  referred  to,  111. 

Bochart,  "  Gebgraphia  Sacra "  of, 
52. 

Bockholdt,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, .53. 

Bocler  on  N.  T.  Greek,  50. 

Bosveld,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 79  f. 

Braun,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 
45. 

Broadns,  J.  A.,  articles  of,  referred 
to,  70, 1 1 1 ;  estimate  of,  as  a  text- 
critic,  70 ;  appendix  from  notes 
of,  378  ff. 

Bucer,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 
42. 

Bullinger,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 42. 

Burgon,  treatise  of,  referred  to.  111. 

Burman,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 45. 

Burrage,  article  of,  referred  to,  68. 

Buxtorf,  J.  (the  younger),  position 
of,  as  an  interpreter,  49  f. ;  his 
controversy  with  Capellus  on  the 
Hebrew  vowel-points,  49  f. 

Byzantine  school  of  Scripture  in- 
terpretation, 34. 

Calixtus,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 43. 

Calov,  Abr.,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 43. 

Calvin,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 40  ;  compared  with  Bengel, 
47  f. 

Canon  of  Scripture  long  indefinite, 
15f. ;  why  various  books  were 
rejected  by  various  branches  of 
fhe  church,  and  how  unanimity 
was  finally  reached,  20  f. 

Capellus,  his  controversy  with  Bux- 
torf on  the  Hebrew  vowel-points, 
49  f. 


CasteHus,  heptaglot  lexicon  of,  51. 

Catenists,  36. 

Celle'rier,  work  of,  on  hermeneutics, 
referred  to,  12,  29,  159. 

Celsius,  "  Hierobotanicon  "  of,  52. 

Chiliasm  among  recent  orthodox 
German  interpreters,  77. 

Chronology  of  the  N.  T.,  272  ;  pau- 
city of  data  for,  273 ;  unsettled 
questions  in,  273  flf. 

Chrysostom,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, 33. 

Citations  from  the  O.  T.,  in  the 
N.T.,  166  ff. ;  well-applied,  167  f.; 
seemingly  unsuitable,  but  really 
just,  169  ff.;  arbitrarily  (1)  ap- 
plied, 172ff. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  position  of, 
as  an  interpreter,  31  ;  quoted, 
342. 

Clement  of  Rome,  Epistle  of,  to 
Corinthians,  early  regarded  as 
canonical  by  some,  20  f. 

Clericus,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 54. 

Cobet,  hermeneutical  principles  of, 
80.- 

Cocceius,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 45. 

Common  sense  requisite,  though 
not  suflScient  of  itself,  for  the  in- 
terpreter, 197. 

Commentaries,  ancient  and  modern, 
as  helps  to  the  understanding  of 
the  N.  T.,  —  estimate  of  the  most 
noted  ones,  187  ff.;  importance 
of  familiarity  with  the  character- 
istics of,  189  ;  contribute  to  make 
the  exegetical  judgment  difficult, 
196. 

Comprehension,difficulty  of,between 
individuals  of  different  degrees  of 
culture,  2  ;  of  different  national- 
ities, 2  ;  of  different  times,  3. 

Conant,  Mrs.  H.  C,  her"  History  of 
the  English  Bible,"  referred  to, 
44. 

Confessio  Helvetica,  referred  to,  91, 

Confessional  consciousness,  influ- 
ence of,  on  exegesis,  354  f. 

Conflicting  results  from  the  appli- 
cation of  various  means  of  ex- 
planation, 181. 

Conjecture,  critical,  importance  of, 
in  text-criticism,  106. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


387 


Conjunctions,  importance  of,  in  the 
logical  explanation,  203. 

Connection,  the,  as  a  help  to  the 
explanation,  144  fF,;  importance 
of  attending;  to,  144  f.  ;  examples 
illustrating  the  use  of  144  fF.  ; 
principles  with  regard  to,  158  f. ; 
absence  of,  seeming  or  actual, 
207. 

Corruptions  of  the  text  (see  "Text  *' 
and  "Criticism  of  the  text"), 
from  attempts  to  make  citations 
accord  with  the  original,  116  f.; 
for  the  sake  of  harmony,  117  f. ; 
on  grammatical  grounds,  121  f . ; 
on  ecclesiastical  grounds,  123  f. 

Course  of  thought,  ascertaining  the, 
of  an  entire  section,  210  fF.; 
methods  and  difficulties  of,  210  f.; 
rules  with  regard  to,  219. 

Cremer,  H.,  lexicon  of,  referred  to, 
131,  etc. 

Critico-speculative  theology,  73  ff.; 
elements  of  truth  and  error  in, 
87  f. 

Criticism,  relation  of,  to  revelation 
and  to  tradition,  87  f.    - 

Criticism  of  the  text,  104 fF.;  gen- 
eral view  of,  104  f.;  means  of 
arriving  at  the  correct  reading, 
105f.;' helps  to,  108;  method  of 
procedure  in,  110;  examples  in, 
1 10  fF.  ;  principles  with  regard  to, 
109,  113,  121,  123,  124;  relation 
of,  to  exegesis,  124. 

Culture  defined,  I. 

Cursive  manuscripts  defined,  109. 

Cvril  of  Alexandria,  -allegorizing 
'of,  32, 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  his  treatise  on 
the  Scriptures  referred  to,  22, 23. 

De  Dieu  Louis,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  49. 

Deism,  English,  56. 

Delitzsch,  F.,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, 77. 

De  Wctte,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
])reter,  67  f. 

Dialectics  of  the  N.  T.,  200  fF. 

Diodcrus  of  Tarsus,  position  of,  as 
an  inter,  rctcr,  33. 

Doctrinal  ditfercnces  (as  between 
Paul  and  James),  a  result  of  dif- 
ference of  occasion,  etc.,  366  ff. 


Dogmatic  interpretation,  its  ele- 
ments of  truth  and  error,  85. 

Dogmatic  prepossession  a  fruitful 
source  of  false  interpretation,  144. 

Drusius,  on  N-.  T.  Greek,  50 ;  posi- 
tion of,  as  an  intcrpi'eter,  53. 

Dusterdieck,  aeon  tinuator  of  Meyer, 
68. 

Dutch  version  of  the  Bible,  excel- 
lence of,  44. 

Dutch  exegetes,  dependent  on  dog- 
matics, 44  f. ;  later  exegetes  and 
philologists,  52  f.  ;  i-ecent  exe- 
getes, 79  IF. ;  separation  of  the 
courses  in  the  universities,  80. 

Ecclesiastical  form  of  religious  truth 
as  compared  with  the  biblical, 
364  f. 

Edessa,  exegetical  school  of,  34. 

EUicott,  treatise  of,  on  Revision  re- 
ferred to,  44. 

Elzcviri,  their  editions  of  the  N.T., 
50  f. 

Encyclopaedists,  French,  56. 

English  exegesis  in  recent  times 
dependent  on  the  German,  83  f. 

English  (London)  Polyglot,  51. 

English  version,  by  whom  made, 
44. 

Ephraem  Syrus,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  34. 

Erasmus,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 38  ;  his  labors  in  textual 
criticism,  38  f. 

Ernesti,  services  of,  to  exegesis, 
50  ;  his  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion, 55  f. 

Eschatological  discourse  of  Jesus, 
analysisof,  252  fF. ;  Danielle  col- 
oring of,  255. 

Essenes  at  the  time  of  Christ,  288. 

Eusebius,  referred  to,  21,  etc. ;  im- 
portance of,  for  biblical  antiqui- 
ties, 261. 

Euthymius  Zigabenn.s,  position  of, 
as  an  interpreter,  34  f. 

Exegesis  (see  "Interpretation"). 

Exploration  of  Palestine,  effect  of, 
on  biblical  studios,  260 ;  general 
view  of  modern  labors  in,  260  ff. 

Faith,  Johannean  idea  of,  328  ;  hovr 
far  injured  by  a  scicn title  study 
of  the  Scriptures,  347  f. 


388 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Fathers,  Greek  and  Latin,  impor- 
tance of,  for  textual  criticism ,  1 05. 

Fisclicr,  his  edition  of  Buxtorf's 
lexicon  referred  to,  49. 

Flacius,  Matth.,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  42. 

riatt,  J.  F.  and  K.  C,  position  of, 
as  interpreters,  62. 

Franke,  A.  H.,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  46, 

Fritzsche,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 60,  61. 

Fundamental  thought  (see  "  Inten- 
tion"). 

Furrer,  his  work  as  a  Palestinian 
explorer,  262. 

Gadara,  locality  of,  2G7. 

Gardiner,  article  of,  referred  to,  104. 

Gejer,  Mart.,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, 43. 

Genealogies  of  Jesus,  difficulties 
with  regai-d  to,  280  f. 

General  interest  in  Scripture  an  in- 
citement to  the  scientific  study 
thereof,  346. 

Geography,  biblical,  sources  of, 
260  ff.  ;  application  of,  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  N.  T.,  263; 
knowledge  of,  gives  life-likeness 
to  the  N.  T,  narratives',  26.5  f. ; 
unsolved  difficulties  in,  266  ff. 

Gesenius,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 59  f. 

Ghemetria  in  the  Apocalypse,  334  f. 

Glassius,  Sal.,. on  N.  T.  Greek,  50. 

Gomarus,  F.,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, 44. 

Gospels  (see  "Matthew,"  "Mark," 
etc.),  motive  for  the  writing  of, 
19;  general  characterization  of, 
19. 

Gothic  version  of  the  N.  T.  referred 
to,  58,  etc. 

Gousset,  his  controversy  with 
Schultens  on  the  importance  of 
Arabic  for  biblical  study,  53. 

Grammatical  explanation,  the,124ff. 

Grammatico  -  historical  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture,  87. 

Grammatical  sense,  the,  the  start- 
ing-point in  interpretation,  95. 

Greek  authors,  the  later,  as  helps  to 
the  understanding  of  the  N.  T. 
language,  185  f. 


Gregory,  C.  R.,  article  of,  referred 
to,  70. 

Gregory  the  Great,  position  of,  as 
an  interpreter,  36. 

Griesbach,  labors  of,  in  textual 
criticism,  70. 

Grimm,  lexicon  of,  referfed  to,  131. 

Grossc  on  N.  T.  Greek,  50. 

Grotius,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 48  f. 

Haager  Society,  the,  79. 

Hackett's  Commentary  on  Acts  re- 
ferred to,  278,  282,  etc. 

Hagenbach  referred  to,  on  Buxtorf, 
49  ;  on  Wetstein,  51. 

Hamaker,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 81. 

Hammond,  treatise  of,  on  textual 
criticism,  referred  to,  109. 

Hapax  legomena,  method  of  dealing 
with,  162. 

Harmony,  efforts  to  secure,  a  source 
of  corruption  of  the  text,  108. 

Harms,  Klaus,  a  second  Luther,7l. 

Havernik,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 72. 

Hebraisms  in  the  N.T.  Greek,  1 27  ff. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  why  long 
rejected  by  the  AVestem  church, 
21  ;  linguistic  peculiarities  of, 
136 ;  kinds  of  argument  em- 
ployed in,  203  ;  intention  of,  318ff. 

Hebrews,  their  lively  appreciation 
of  nature,  264. 

Hebrew,  importance  of  a  knowledge 
of,  for  understanding  the  N.  T. 
Greek,  186. 

Hegel,  influence  of,  on  biblical 
study,  74  ;  fall  of  the  school  of, 
in  1848,  76. 

Hellenism,  influence  of,  on  modern 
aesthetics,  2. 

Helps,  to  be  employed  not  at  first, 
and  not  slavishly,  8  f . ;  general: 
internal,  144  ff.  ;  external,  183  ff. ; 
time  and  order  in  the  use  of,  187. 

Hcmsterhnys  on  N.  T.  Greek,  —  his 
interest  in  theological  studies,  53. 

Hengstenbcrg,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, 71  ;  as  champion  of 
Orthodoxy  against  the  modern 
Tubingen  school,  76  f. 

Herder,  influence  of,  on  biblical 
study,  64  f. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


389 


Herinj^a,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 81. 
Hermann,  G  ,  treatise  of,  on  inter- 
pretation, referred  to,  11  ;  influ- 
ence of,  on  the  philoloj^ical  study 
of  theN.  T.,  60. 
Hernias,  the  Shephered  of,  early  re- 
garded as  canonical  by  some,  20  f. 
Hermenejitics,    how    it    arose,   4 ; 
divisions  of,  6  (see  "Interpreta- 
tion"). 
Herzog,  Encyclopaedic  of,  referred 

to,  40,  259,  286,  etc. 
High-priests  in  the  N.  T.  time,  284. 
HilgenCekl,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 75. 
Historical  sense  required  in  the  in- 
terpreter, 366. 
Historiography,  Oriental,  character 

of,  293. 
History,  the  study  of,  as  a  means 
of  culture,  1  ;  exact,  unknown  to 
antiquity,  298. 
History,    biblical,   270  fF.  ;    sources 

of,  271  f. ;  difficulties  in,  278  ff. 
Historico  -critical         (Antiochian) 

school  of  interpretation,  32  f 
Hoekstra,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 81. 
Hoi'mann,  theological  position  of,77. 
Holiness,  the  fundamental  idea  of 

theN.  T.,  130. 
Homoioteleuton,  a  source  of  corrup- 
tion of  the  text,  107. 
Hort,  labors  of,  in  textual  criticism, 

70. 
Humanism,  influence  of,  on  bibli- 
cal studies,  37  f. 
Humility,  N.  T.  idea  of,  130.        . 
Hunnius,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 43. 
Hupfeld,  treatise  of,  referred  to,  79. 
Huther,  a  continuator   of  Meyer, 
69. 

Ibas,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 
34. 

Illuminisra  in  Germany,  57. 

Impartation,  exegeticd,  the  princi- 
pal object  of  exegetical  inquiry, 
10  ;  clearness  of  apprehension 
necessary  in  order  to,  10  ;  regard 
to  be  had  to  the  character  of  the 
•  audience  in,  10  f  ;  the  ideal  to  be 
aimed  at  in,  11. 

93* 


Impartiality   in    the    treatment  of 

Scripture  a  result  of  conflict,  28  f. 

Incpngruities  apparent,  method  of 

procedure  in  cases  of,  214  ff. 
Independence  of  judgment  on  the 
part  of  the  interpreter  insisted 
on,  187,  190,  etc. 
Individualities      of     the   .  biblical 
writers,  influence  of,  on  the  his- 
torical representation,  3.08  f. 
Induction  and  deduction,   correla- 
tion of,  in  discovering  the  inten- 
tion of  a  writing,  337. 
Inexperience  a  source  of  error  in 

the  exegetical  judgment,  197. 
Inspiration,  views  of,  12,  92  f.  etc. 
Intention,  discovery    of    the,   of  a 
writing    or    section,    220  ff.  ;    of 
parables,  220  ff.  ;  of  the  Sermon 
on   the   Mount,    235  ff. ;    of  the 
.Johannean  discourses  of  Christ, 
238  ff. ;  of  the   Epistles,  241  ff.  ; 
of  prophetical   sections,  246  ff. ; 
method  of  ascertaining,  310  f.  ;  of 
doctrinal  writings,  312  ff.  ;  of  his- 
torical writings,  323  ff. ;    distin- 
guished from  "  tendency,"  310. 
Interpretation,  a   removing  of  dif- 
ferences of  language,  6  ;  of  tem- 
poral and  historical  relations,  7  ; 
of  views  and  convictions,  7  ;  be- 
tween the  actual  teaching  of  the 
author  and  the  interpreter's  view 
of  the  matter,  7  ;  methods  of  pro- 
cedure  in,  3,  8  ff. ;  helps   to   be 
employed  not   at  first   and    not 
slavishly   in,    8  f.  ;    grammatical 
sense,   its   place   in,  9 ;   order  of 
investigation  in,  9  ;  side  questions 
in,  9  ;  flash  of  genius  in,  9  ;  goal 
of.lO  ;  history  of  Scripture,  30  ff. ; 
allegorical,  30  ff  ;  historico-criti- 
cal,  32  ff.  ;  in  the  Western  church, 
35  ff.  ;  in  the  Ik-formation  time, 
39  ff.  ;  in  the  Dutch  church,  44  f. ; 
reaction    against   dogmatism  in, 
in  the  17th  century,  45  ff. ;    libcr- 
alistic  :  Socinian  and  Arminian, 
48  f.  ;  in  the  Netherlands,  52  ff. ; 
transirion    to    the     grnmmaiico- 
historical,    55  ff.  ;     rationalistic, 
59  f.  ;     supcrnaturalistic,    59  f.  ; 
pro2:ress  in,  64  f  ;  revival  of  or- 
thodoxy in,  71  f. ;  critico-speca- 
lative  'endcncy  in,  73  ff.  ;    rcac- 


390 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


tion   aijainst  the  crltico-specula- 
tive  tendency  in,  76  f.  ;  compari- 
son  of  the  various  methods  of, 
83  fF. 
Irenaeus,  referred  to,  20,  21,  etc. 

Jaraes,  Epistle  of,  linirnistic  pecu- 
liarities of,  137  f. ;  arguments  em- 
ployed in,  203. 

Jarchi,  Sal.  Isaac,  a  Jewish  inter- 
preter, 39. 

Jerome,  referred  to,  21,  etc. ;  position 
of,  as  an  interpreter,  35;  impor- 
tance of,  for  biblical  antiquities, 
261. 

Jerusalem,  ancient,  topography  of, 
209. 

Jewish  interpreters,  39  f. 

Jews,  the  exclusiveness  of,  as  ex- 
hibited in  the  O.  T.,  compared 
■with  that  of  the  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans, 98  ;  customs,  observances, 
etc.,  of,  289  If. ;  doctrines  and 
o])inions  of,  292. 

Jolumnean  discourses  of  Jesus, 
treatment  of,  238  ff. ;  intention 
of,  327. 

Johannean  logic,  peculiarities  of, 
210  ff. 

John,  Gospel  according  to,  takes  a 
position  above  Judaism  and  Pau- 
linism,  19;  methods  of  reasoning 
in  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in, 
210 ff.;  though  adopted  by  the 
Gnostics  not  rejected  by  the 
church,  22  ;  linguistic  peculiar- 
ities of,  138  f.  ;  intention  of,  320  ff, 

John,  First  Epistle  of,  linguistic 
peculiarities  of,  138  f.;  intention 
of,  320  ff.  ;  analysis  of,  322. 

John,  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of, 
why  doubts  as  to  their  canonicity 
were  entertained  in  the  early 
church,  21. 

Josephus,  importance  of,  for  bibli- 
cal antiquities,  201*,  etc. 

Judgment,  tlie  excgetical,  method 
of  arriving  at,  190  ff.;  difiiculties 
in  the  way  of,  19.')  f. 

Judgment  (t!ie  faculty)  defects  in, 
hard  to  remedy,  196. 

Justin  Martyr,  referred  to,  21,  etc. 

Kant,  hcrmeneutical  theory  of,  57  f  ; 
objections  to,  58  f. 


Kantelaar,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 79. 

Keil,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 
72. 

Kendrick,  his  edition  of  Olshausen's 
Commentary  referred  to,  72. 

Kimchi,  a  Jewish  interpreter,  39. 

Knapp,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 63. 

Kuenen,  hermeneutical  principles 
of,  80. 

Kurtz,  theological  position  of,  77. 

Lachmann,  labors  of,  in  textual 
criticism,  70. 

Lampe,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 46. 

Lange,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 
77. 

Language  of  the  N.  T.,  basis  of, 
■!25  ;  peculiarities  of,  125  f, 
378  ff;  popular  rather  than  lit- 
erary, 126;  sources  of,  120  f.; 
Aramaic  coloring  of,  127  ff.; 
Latin  element  in,  129  ;  helps  for 
the  study  of,  185  f. 

Le  Fevre  d'Estaple,  position  of,  as 
an  interpreter,  38. 

Legendary  (?)  element  in  the  N.T., 
301  f. 

Leusden  on  N.  T.  Greek,  50. 

Levita,  a  Jewish  interpreter,  39. 

Leyser,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 43. 

Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  treatise  on  revision 
referred  to,  43. 

Lighttoot,  J.,  "  llorae  Hebraicae'* 
of,  referred  to,  52,  etc. 

Linguistic  peculiarities  of  the  vari- 
ous N.  T.  writers,  132  ff.  ;  nature 
of  the  peculiarities,  132  f. 

Linguistic  usage  as  a  means  of  in- 
terpretation, 5,  7,  95. 

Logical  explanation  the,  198  ff.; 
principles  with  regard  to,  209. 

Logos,  the  Johannean,  relation  of, 
to  that  of  Philo,  240  f.,  294. 

Lucian  of  Samosata,  position  of,  as 
an  interpreter,  32. 

Liieke,  hermeneutical  principles  of, 
66  f. 

Liinemann,  a  continuator  of  Meyer, 
69. 

Luther,  his  view  of  the  Apocalypse, 
20;  ills  positiou  as  au  ipte'rpre- 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


891 


ter,  40 ;  how  qualified  to  be  an 

interpreter    of    Paul's    writing, 

360  f 
Lutheran  interpreters,  42  If. 
Lutz,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 

69. 

Maimonides,  a  Jewish  philosopher 

and  interpreter,  39.  ^ 

Manrrold,  his   edition    of   Bleek  s 

Inlroductions  referred  to,  67  f. 
Manuscripts,  mode  of  multipliea- 
tinn  of,  in  ancient  times,  104; 
most  important  ones  mentioned, 
105,  108;  Alexandrine,  Byzan- 
tine,' and  AVestern,  105;  fading 
and  renev/ing  of,  112. 
Marcion,  his  canon  of    Scripture, 

20. 
Marginal  notes,  incorporation  ot,  a 
source  of  textual  corruption,  107. 
Mark,  linguistic  peculiarities  of  the 

Gospel  according  to,  142  f. 
Matthai,  labors  of,  in  textual  criti- 
cism, 69.  .  .        ^ 
Matthew,  linguistic  peculiarities  ot 

the  Gospel  according  to,  143  f. 
Mediaeval  exejrcsis,  36  if. 
Messiah,  the  N.  T.  idea  of,  99  f. 
Messianic  prophecies,  98  ;  expecta- 
tion among  the  Jews  at  the  time 
of  Christ,  294  ff.  . 

Methods,  excgetical  compared,  83  ff. 
Meuschen,  his  collection  of  passages 

from  the  Talmud,  52. 
Meyer,  G.  W.,  his  history  of  Scrip- 
ture interpretation  referred  to,  29. 
Mejer,  II.  A.  W.,  position  of,  as  an 

interpreter^  68  f. 
Michaelis  on  the  N.  T.  Greek,  50 ; 
position  of,  as  an  interpreter,  57. 
I\Iill,  J.,  his  edition  of  the  N.T.,  51. 
Milli"-an,  article  of,  referred  to,  70. 
Miracles,  biblical  idea  of,  300;  ex- 
planation of  :  the  Orthodox,  304  ; 
the   natural,  304;  the   mystical, 
305  ;  the  mythical,  305  ;  elements 
of    truth     and     error    in    these 
methods,  306  ff. 
Monotheism,  a  leading  idea  in  the 
Scrintures,  97  f.  ^ 

Moulton,    his    edition   of  Winers 

Grammar  n  fcrred  to,  61,  378. 
Mnratorian  Fragments  referred  to, 
20. 


Neronian  persecution,  how  regarded 
by  the  early  Christians,  19  f., 
333 ff.  .    . 

New  Testament  writings,  distinc- 
tive features  of,  16  f. ;  based  not 
immediately  upon  revelation,17f. ; 
relation  of,  to  the  O.  T.,  26  ;  mode 
of  the  rise  of,  27  ;  authors  of,  de- 
pendent to  some  extent  on  tradi- 
tion, 27  ;  unequal  in  value,  2S  ; 
divine  contents  of,  28. 

Nicolai,  periodical  of,  referred  to, 
56. 

Kiermeyer,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 81. 

Nisibis,  exegetical  school  of,  34; 
canon  of,  34. 

Nitzsch,  his  edition  of  Bleek's  lec- 
tures on  Ephesians,  etc.,  68. 

Oecolampadius,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  42. 

Olcarius,  on  N.  T.  Greek,  50. 

Olshauscn,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 72  f. 

Origen,  referred  to,  20,  21,  22,  etc. ; 
position  of,  as  an  interpreter,  31f._; 
importance  of,  for  textual  criti- 
cism, 105. 

Orthodoxy,  recent,  in  opposition  to 
the  critico-speculative  theology, 
76  f. 

Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  262. 

Parables,  discovery  of  the  funda- 
n.ental  thought  of,  220  ff. ;  errors 
ill  the  explanation  of,  220  ;  media 
for  ascertaining  the  drift  of,  220  f. ; 
anplication  of  the  media,  222  ; 
spiritualizing  of,  223 ;  appended 
interpretations  ot,  225;  cases  m 
which  more  than  one  application 
is  given,  226  f. ;  contents  of,  to  be 
considered,  228  f. ;  attention  to 
the  personalities  of,  230  ;  doctrinal 
contents  to  be  .distinguished  from 
mere  delineation  in,  ilil  ;  seem- 
ingly incomplete,  232  ;  the  Johan- 
ncan, 234, 

Parallel  ]iassages  as  a  help  to  the 
explanation.  159  ff.;  kinds  of 
parallels,  159  f.  ;  examples  in  the 
application  of,  100  ff.  ;  genuine 
parallels,  162  ;  examples  of, 
1G3  ff. ;  in  different  connections, 


392 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


164  ;  dissimilarly  occasioned, 1G5  ; 
cases  of  extraordinary  difficulty 
in  connection  with,  177  ff. ;  prin- 
ciples in  the  nj;plication  of,  181, 

Parcan,  hcrmeneutical  views  of,  80. 

Participles,  ini])ortancc  of,  in  the 
logical  explanation,  204. 

Particles,  obscurities  from  the  use 
of,  182. 

Pastoral  Epistles,  why  some  in 
early  times  hesitated  to  admit 
into  the  canon,  21. 

Paul,  influence  of  Rabbinical  cul- 
ture on  the  writings  of,  18;  gen- 
eral object  of  his  Epistles  con- 
firmatory,! 8  ;  linguistic  character 
of  the  writings  of,  133  ft".  ;  kinds 
of  argument  employed  by,  134  f., 
201  ff. 

Paulus.  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, GO, 

Peter,  second  Epistle  of,  why  some 
in  early  times  hesitated  to  admit 
into  the  canon,  21. 

Peschito  Syriac  version,  referred 
to,  20,  58,  etc. 

Pfodicn  on  N.  T.  Greek,  50. 

Pharisees  in  the  N.  T.  time,  287. 

Philipj.i,  his  discussion  of  Rom. 
vii.  7-24,  243. 

Philo,  a  representative  of  the  allegor- 
ical interpretation,  29  f. ;  quoted, 
240,  etc. 

Philosophy,  German,  influence  of, 
on  biblical  study,  74. 

Pietistic  interpretation,  the,  its  ele- 
ments of  truth  and  error,  85  f. 

Piscator,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 44. 

Pluniptre,  article  of,  referred  to,  44. 

Poets,  the  German,  influence  of,  on 
biblical  study,  64. 

Political  personages  in  the  N.  T,, 
283  f.- 

Popular  understanding  of  Scripture, 
how  far  sound,  and  hoAV  far  un- 
sound, 345  f. 

Practical  treatment  of  the  Bible, 
relation  of,  to  the  scientific,  375  f. 

Pragmatism,  religious,  in  the  0.  T., 
and  in  the  N.  T.,  299  f. 

Presupposition,  freedom  from,  on 
the  ])art  of  the  interpreter  insisted 
on,  93  ;  confusion  of  views  with 
regard  to,  94. 


Procopius  of  Gaza,  position  of,  as 
an  interpreter,  36. 

Prophecy  in  the  O.  T,  and  in  the 
N.T.,  98  f. ;  ascertaining  the  fun- 
damental thought  in,  246  f. ;  true 
idea. of,  247  ;  examination  of  He- 
brew words  and  phrases  with  re- 
gard to,  247  f. ;  historical  ground 
of,  248  f.,  331;  difiicultics  in  in- 
terpreting, 249  ff.  ;  divinity  of, 
not  shown  chiefly  in  coincidences, 
251  f. 

Prophets,  Hebrew  designations  of, 
247  f. ;  not  unconscious  and  in- 
voluntary, 248. 

Rambach,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 47. 

Rationalism  in  interpretation,  50  f. ; 
relation  of,  to  supernaturalism  at 
the  beginning  of  the  19th  cen- 
tury, 62. 

Rationalistic  interpretation,  the,  its 
elements  of  truth  and  error,  86  f. 

Reading,  as  a  means  of  culture,  1, 

Real,  a  use  of  the  word  defined, 
60. 

Real  explanation,  259  ff. ;  scope  and 
importance  of,  259  f.  ;  relation  of, 
to  exegesis  proper,  296  ft'. 

Reformed  interpreters,  as  distin- 
.  guishcd  from  Lutheran,  43  f. 

TReformcrs,  not  iiupartial  students 
of  Scripture,  29  ;  compared 
among  themselves  as  to  exogetical 
ability,  40  ;  influence  of  Catholic 
polemics  on  tiie  exegesis  of,  42  ; 
influence  of  Protestant  Orthodoxy 
on  the  exegesis  of,  42  f. 

Regula  fidei,  vagueness  of,  as  a 
norma  interpre,*^andi,  91. 

Reland,  the  founder  of  Biblical 
Geography,  52. 

Religi'jn,  universality  of,  in  human- 
ity, 341  f. 

Religious  development  of  individ- 
uals, 343. 

Religious  interest,  its  rights  and  its 
usurpations,  339ft:  ;  .349  fF. ;  359  fF.; 
to  bo  kept  distinct  from  the  scicu- 
tifi(i,  340  ;  as  motive  to  Scri[)ture 
study,  341  ;  relation  of,  to  the  ex- 
egctical  ]irocodurc,  349  fF  ;  must 
not  interfere  in  matters  of  textual 
criticism,  350;  of  grammar,  352  f. ; 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


393 


is  it  endangered  by  the  histori- 
cal criticism  '/  357  fF. 
Eeligious  ripeness  essential  to  the 

inteqjreter,  366. 
Religious  understanding  of  Scrip- 
ture, 339  ff. 
Eenan,  his  "  Histoire  general  des 
'  langues  Se'mitiques  "  referred  to, 

51. 
"  Restoration  "  theology,  the,  71  f. 
Resurrection  of  Jesus,  difficulties  in 

the  accounts  of,  281  f. 
Revelation,  idea  of,  12  IF. ;  not  neces- 
sarily written,  14 f.  ;  and  there- 
cord  of  revelation  distinguished, 
25. 
Reville,  his  services  to  biblical  study, 

82. 
Rhetorical  expressions,  figures,  and 

turns  in  the  N.  T.,  198  ff. 
Ritter,  influence  of  the  geographical 

treatises  of,  260. 
Rivetus,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 44. 
Roman  law,  its  influence  on  modem 

codes,  2. 
Romans,  Epistle  to  the,   intention 

of,  312  ff. 
Rocs,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 

48. 
Rothe,  hermeneutical  principles  of, 
78. 

Sadducees,  the,  in  the  N.  T.  time, 
287. 

Samaritans,  the,  in  the  N.  T.  time, 
288. 

Sanhedrim,  the,  in  the  N.  T.  time, 
285. 

Schleicrmacher,  hermeneutical 

principles  of,  65  f. 

Schlichting,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, 48. 

Schmidt,    Seb.,   position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  43. 

Scholtcn,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 82. 

Scholz,  labors  of,  in  textual  criti- 
cism, G9. 

Schottircn,  his  collection  from  the 
Tahnud,  52. 

Schultens,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 53. 
Schulz,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter. 61  f. 


Schwegler,  critical  studies  of,  75. 
Scientific  study  of  Scripture,  rela- 
tion of,  to  faith,  347  ;  how  to  be 
harmonized  with    the    religious 
interest,  359  f. 
Scribes  in  the  N.  T.  time,  286. 
Scriptio  continua,  a  source  of  text- 
ual corruption,  106  f. 
Scriptura  Scripturae  interpres,  183. 
Scriptures,  the  Holy,  influence  of, 
2 ;  difiiculties  in  understanding,  2 ; 
importance  of  understanding,  2  ; 
whether,  and  how  far  to  be  inter- 
preted   as    other    ancient   docu- 
ments, 5  f.,    95  f  ;    human    and 
divine  elements  in,  5  f. ;  radical 
views  with  regard  to  the  inspira- 
tion of,  12  ;   relation  of,  to   the 
theocracv,  14;  idolization  of,  14, 
15,  343  ff. ;  recorded  for  posterity, 
15 ;  canon  of,  long  indefinite,  14  ; 
proceed  from  revelation,  15  ;  cor- 
rect (1)  view  of,  25,  90  f,  343  ff. ; 
is  the  unity  of,  to  be  presupposed  1 
291 ;  popular  understanding  of, 
345  f. 
Scrivener,  his  "  Introduction,'*  etc., 
referred  to,  39,  51,  104;    labors 
of,  in  textual  criticism,  70. 
Semler,  founder  of  BiblicalCriticism 

in  Germany,  55. 
Sepp,  treatises  of,  referred  to,  83. 
Sepulchre,   the  Holy,   locality  of, 

269. 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  Matthew, 
and  in  Luke,  235  ff. ;  locality  of, 
268. 
Simon,  Rich.,  a  Catholic,  founder 

of  Biblical  Introduction,  51. 
Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  re- 
ferred to,  35,  105,  etc. 
Socinus,  Faustus,  position  of,  as  an 

interpreter,  48. 
Spener,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 46. 
Spinoza,  hermeneutical    principles 

of,  59. 
Spiritual    intercourse    a  means  of 

culture,  1. 
Spiritualistic  interpretation,  its  ele- 
ments of  truth  and  error,  89  f. 
Stanley,  his  Commentary  on  Cor- 
inthians referred  to,  18. 
Statement,  the  exegetical,  100 ff.; 
method  and  order  of  procedure 


394 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


in,  100  f. ;  character  of  the  audi- 
ence always  to  be  regarded  in, 
102  f. 

Steiger,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 72. 

Stier,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 
73. 

Storr,  position  of,  as  an  interpreter, 
62. 

Strabo,  position  of,  as  an  interpre- 
ter, 37. 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  his  "Life  of  Jesus," 
74 ;  quoted,  35.5. 

Stuart,  Moses,  his  translation  of 
Ernesti's  work  on  Interpretation, 
55  ;  Commentary  on  Revelation, 
referred  to,  139. 

Siiskind,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 62. 

Swiss  Rationalists,  62. 

Sympathy  with  the  religious  situa- 
tion and  disposition  of  the  author 
requisite  for  the  intcrjjreter,  365. 

Synagogue  worship  in  the  N.  T. 
time,  285. 

Talmud  of  use  in  illustrating  the 
N.  T.,  52. 

Teleology,  the  biblical,  204. 

Teller,  N.  T.  lexicon  of,  57. 

Tendcntial  criticism,  88,  etc. 

Tertullian,  referred  to,  21,  etc.; 
cited,  342,  etc. 

Text  of  the  N.  T.,  corruptions  of, 
23,  104  ff. ;  autographs  of,  lost, 
23,  104 ;  stichometry  of,  when 
invented,  23  ;  classes  of  corrup- 
tions of,  24,  106ff. ;  criticism  of, 
how  regarded  in  the  17th  cen- 
tury, 24  ;  importance  of  criticism 
of,  24,  25,  28,  etc. 

Text-critics  of  Germany,  England, 
and  America,  69  f. 

Textus  receptus  in  Germany  and 
in  England,  51. 

Thayer,  his  edition  of  Winer's 
Grammar  referred  to, 61 ,1 24,  etc. ; 
of  Buttmann's  Grammar,  124. 

Theism  of  the  Bible,  ])cculiarity  of, 
360  f  ;  how  to  be  com])rehcndcd, 
361;  results  of,  in  the  N.T.,  3GI  f. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  position 
of,  as  an  interpreter,  33. 

Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  position  of,  as 
an  interpreter,  33  f. 


Theological  understanding  of  Scrip- 
ture, 360  ff. ;  impartation  of,  to 
others  :  scientific,  370  ff. ;  practi- 
cal, 372  ff. 

Tholuck,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 07. 

Tischendorf,  labors  of,  in  textual 
criticism,  70  f. 

Tobler,  his  work  as  a  Palestinian 
Explorer,  262. 

Tradition,  place  of,  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture,  184. 

Transfiguration,  Moufit  of  the,  268. 

Tregelles,  labors  of,  in  textual  crit- 
icism, 70;  articles  of,  in  Smith's 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  referred 
to,  105. 

Trench,  referred  to,  on  Revision, 
44;  on  N.  T.  Synonyms,  131  ; 
on  the  Apocalypse,  327  ;  on  mir- 
acles, 303  ;  on  Parables,  220. 

Uncanonical  Christian  writings, 
20  f. 

Uncial  manuscripts  defined,  109. 

Unity  of  Scripture,  is  it  to  be  pre- 
supposed 1  91. 

Yalckenaer,  a  philologist,  his  in- 
terest in  biblical  studies,  53. 

Valla,  Laurcntius,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  38. 

Van  der  Palm,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  81. 

Van  Hcngel,  position  of,  as  an  in- 
terpreter, 81. 

Van  Oosterzee,  position  of,  as  an 
interpreter,  81. 

Venema,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 54. 

Versions,  most  important  ones  men- 
tioned, 105  ;  texts  of  corrupt,105, 
108  f. 

Vitringa,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 45  f ,  53  f. 

Volkmar,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 76. 

Voltaire,  influence  of,  on  religious 
thought,  56. 

Vorst,  on  N.  T.  Graek,  50. 

"Wahl,  lexicon  of,  criticised,  159  f. 
Walton,  Brian,  Polyglot  of,  51. 
War  of  1813,  influence  of,  on  bibli- 
cal studies,  63. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


895 


Wcrenfels  on  the  N.  T.  Greek,  50. 

Wertheim  version  of  the  Bible, 
57. 

"Westcott,  labors  of,  in  textual  criti- 
cism, 70;  articles  of,  in  Smith's 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  referred 
to,  105. 

Western  church,  the,  far  behind  the 
Eastern  in  exegesis,  35. 

Wei ffen bach,  on  the  eschatological 
discourse  of  Jesus,  254  f. 


Wiseman,  Cardinal,  treatise  of,  re- 
ferred to,  355. 

Wolfen battel,  fragments,  56. 

Woolsej,  T.  D.,  estimate  of,  as  a 
text-critic,  70. 

Zeller,  E.,  critical  studies  of,  75. 
Zetzschwitz,  treatise  of,  referred  to, 
■  127,131. 

Zwingle,  position  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter, 40. 


Note.  —  In  the  final  revision  for  the  press  a  number  of  omissions  of  a 
word  —  in  two  or  three  instances  of  a  clause  —  have  been  discovered,  which 
could  not  be  easily  inserted  in  the  plates.  As  none  of  these  omissions  are 
important  to  the  sense,  it  is  not  thought  necessary  to  subjoin  a  table  of 
errata.  —  Tk. 


COMMENTARIES 

PUBLISHED   BY 
ANDOVER,     MASS. 


These  Boohs  will  be  sent,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  the  price  affixed. 

Ellicotf,  Conirtientaries,  Critical  and  Grammatical, 
hy  C  J,  Ellicott,  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol^ 
viz,  on 

GALATIANS.     With  an  Introductory  Notice  by  C.  E.  Stowe,  lately 

Professor  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.     8vo.  pp.  183.      $1.50 

EPHESIANS.    Svo.  pp.  190.  1.50 

THESSALONIANS.     Svo.     pp.171.  1.50 

THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.     Svo.    pp.  265.  2.00 

PHILIPPIANS,COLOSSIANS,  and  PHILEMON.  Svo.  pp.265.   2.00 

The  Set  in  five  volumes,  tinted  paper,  bevelled  edges,  gilt  tops,  10.00 

The  Set- in  two  volumes,  black  cloth,  bevelled  edges,  8.00 

"We  would'  recommend  all  scholars  of  the  original  Scriptures  who 
seek  directness,  luminous  brevity,  the  absence  of  everything  irrelevant  to 
strict  grammatical  inquiry,  with  a  concise  and  yet  very  complete  view  of 
the  opinions  of  others,  to  possess  themselves  of  EUicott's  Commentaries." 
—  American  Presbyterian. 

"His  Commentaries  are  among  the  best,  if  not  the  very  best,  helps  a 
student  can  have."  —  American  Pi'esbyterian  and  Theological  Review. 

"  Ellicott  is  one  of  the  best  commentators  of  this  class  " — Princeton  Rev. 

"  I  do  not  know  of  anything  superior  to  them  in  their  own  particular 
line."  —  Dean  Alford. 

Hackett.  A  Commentary  on  the  Original  Text  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  By  Horatio  B.  Hackett,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  Newton  Theological 
Institution.  A  new  edition,  revised  and  greatly  enlarged. 
Svo.     Cloth,  $3.50 

This  is  a  reprint  of  the  last  edition  revised  by  Prof.  Hackett  himself. 

Lightfoot.    St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.    A  Eevised 

Text,    with   Introduction,    Notes,    and    Dissertations.     By 

J.  B.  Lightfoot,  D.D.,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity, 

and  Fellow  of  Trinity  College  Cambridge.     Svo.     pp.  402. 

Bevelled  edges,  $3.00 

"  Taken  as  a  whole,  we  venture  to  say  that  this  is  the  most  complete 

and  exhaustive  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  that  has  yet 

appeared,  EUicott's  not  excepted." —  Christian  Intelligencer. 

.   1-77 


Books  Published  by  W,  F.  Draper, 

Psalms.    With  a  new  Translation.     By  J.  G.  Murphy,  $4.00 

"  This  Commentary  is  well  fitted  to  meet  the  -wants  of  pastors  in  pre- 
paring their  expositions  of  the  Psalms.  The  more  educated  teachers  of 
Bible-classes  and  Sabbath-schools  may  study  it  with  advantage.  They 
need  not  be  deterred  from  using  it  by  the  presence  of  the  Hebrew  vords 
which  are  conspicuous  on  some  of  its  pages.  Like  the  other  Commen- 
taries of  Dr.  Murphy,  this  is  distinguished  by  the  ease  and  perspicuity  of 
its  style,  its  freedom  from  pedantry,  and  the  excellent  religious  spirit  per- 
vading it.  The  Introduction,  occupying  the  first  fifty  pages,  is  lucid  and 
interesting."  —  Bibliotheca  Saa-a. 

"  It  is  on  the  whole  one  of  the  best  expositions  of  the  Psalms  acces- 
sible for  popular  instruction,  and  a  valuable  auxiliary  to  the  work  of 
preachers  and  teachers."  —  Examiner  and  Chronicle. 

Perowne.  The  Book  of  Psalms;  a  New  Translation. 
With  Introductions  and  Notes  Explanatory  and  Critical. 
By  J.  J.  Stewart  Perowne,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Trinity  Col- 
lege, Cambridge,  and  Canon  of  Llandaff.  Reprinted  from  the 
Third  English  Edition.     In  Two  Volumes.    8vo.         $7.50 

"  It  comprises  in  itself  more  excellences  than  any  other  commentary 
on  the  Psalms  in  our  language,  and  we  know  of  no  single  commentary 
in  the  German  language  which,  all  things  considered,  is  preferable  to  it." 

—  Baptist  Quarterly. 

"  Very  rare,  indeed,  is  it  that  such  a  combination  of  requisites  to  a  just 
exposition  of  Scripture,  and  particularly  of  this  portion  of  Scripture,  are 
combined  in  one  work,  —  such  scholarship,  such  judgment,  such  taste, 
such  spiritual  insight,  such  wisdom  in  the  general  treatment  of  his  sub- 
ject, such  skill  as  a  translator,  such  simplicity  and  sustained  vigor  of 
style."  —  The  Advance. 

"  This  is  justly  regarded  as  the  standard  commentary  on  the  Book  of 

Psalms  in  England.     It  is  learned,  devout,  and  exhaustive Dr. 

Perowne  is  one  of  the  most  profound  Hebrew  scholars  in  Europe,  and  his 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  text  gives  abundant  evidence  of  his  learniijg." 

—  Lutheran  Observer. 

"  The  Introductions  combine  a  series  of  able  essays  upon  the  structure, 
history,  literature,  and  theology  of  the  Psalms.-  The  new  translation 
adheres  closely  to  the  Hebrew  original.  Tbe  critical  notes  evince  great 
biblical  learning,  rigid  fidelity  in  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  dictionary  and 
grammar,  and  a  reigning  principle  of  arriving  at  the  exact  meaning  of 
every  word,  rather  than  to  give  an  elegant  or  metrical  style  to  the  render- 
ing. Its  practical  reflections  arc  select  and  pointed.  Dr.  Perowne  does 
not  evade  difficulties,  as  do  some  commentators,  and  where  his  conclu- 
sions are  not  satisfactory  to  the  student,  he  will,  at  least,  have  the  assur- 
ance of  honest  dealing  with  the  embarrassments  of  all  interpreters."  — 
Christian  Intelligencer. 

"  If  there  is  a  better  exposition  of  the  Psalms  in  the  English  language 
we  do  not  know  what  it  is.  The  Introduction  and  Notes  are  models  in 
their  kind.  Probably  no  one  in  England  is  more  capable  than  Professsor 
Perowne  of  doing  all  that  Hebrew  scholarship  can  do  towards  a  better 
knowledge  of  the  Psalms."  —  The  Contributor. 

4-77 


Books  Published  by  W,  F.  Draper. 

Classical  Study:  Its  Usefulness  illustrated  by  Selections 
from  the  Writings  of  Eminent  Scholars.  Edited,  with  an 
Introduction,  by  Samuel  H.  Tatlor,  LL.D.,  Principal 
of  Phillips  Academy.     12mo.  $2.00 

Professor  J.  R.  Boise,  of  the  University  of  Chicafjo,  thus  writes  in  the 
March  number  of  the  Illinois  Teacher :  "  The  selection  of  essays  made  by 
Dr.  Taylor  is  eminently  judicious,  and  presents  the  views  of  many 
leading  writers,  both  in  Europe  and  in  this  country.  The  Introduction, 
containing  about  thirty  pages,  gives,  first,  a  concise  and  clear  sketch  of 
the  history  of  the  controversy  on  the  value  of  classical  studies  ;  and  then, 
several  reasons  why  the  highest  benefits  of  classical  study  are  seldom 
reached  in  this  country.  On  this  latter  point,  we  know  of  no  one  better 
qualified  by  education  and  long  experience  as  a  teacher  to  speak  wisely 

To  all  who  desire  the  best  collection  of  essays  in  our  language  on 

classical  study,  the  work  of  Dr.  Taylor  will  be  very  welcome.  It  should 
have   a   conspicuous   place  in  every  school-library,  and  in  the  private 

library  of  every  educator  in  our  land Not  the  least  valuable  part  of 

the  volume  is  the  Introduction,  in  which  Dr.  Taylor  so  ably,  clearly, 
and  fairly  balances  the  arguments  on  the  two  sides." 

"  We  commend  the  book  as  a  valuable  collection  of  essays  on  the 
higher  methods  of  mental  training."  —  American  Presbyterian. 

The  Theology  of  the  Greek  Poets.    By  W.  S.  Tyler, 

"Williston  Professor  of  Greek  in  Amherst  College.     12mo. 
Cloth.  $1.75 

"Professor  Tyler  has  here  produced  a  work  which  is  an  honor  to 
American  literature.  It  is  well  fitted  to  be  a  classic  in  our  Colleges  and 
Theological  Seminaries.  It  furnishes  admirable  illustrations  of  the  truth 
of  both  natural  and  revealed  theology,  and  suggests  original  methods 
for  the  defence  of  these  truths."  —  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"  The  book  is  an  important  contribution  to  natural  theology.  It 
traces  the  relation  of  the  theology  of  the  Greek  "poets  to  that  of  Christ. 
Prof  Tyler  does  his  work  with  the  mind  of  a  master."  —  Zion's  Herald. 

The   Kingdom   of   Christ   on   Earth:     Twelve    Lectures 

delivered  before  the  Students  of  the  Theological  Seminary, 

Andover.      By   Samuel   Harris,  Dwight  Professor  of 

Systematic  Theology  in  Yale  College.    8vo.  $1.75 

"  These  lectures  are  characterized  by  a  firm  grasp  of  the  subject,  by 
profound  and  thorough  comprehension  of  the  facts  and  principles  which 
it  involves,  by  a  lucid  and  connected  method,  and  a  perspicuous  and 
popular  style.  The  subject  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem. The  specific  views  presented  are  judicious  and  sound.  The 
student  in  theology  will  find  that  a  careful  study  of  these  lectures,  pur- 
sued so  far  as  to  bring  the  whole  presentation  into  living  and  shaping 
relation  to  his  religious  thought,  will  be  of  inestimable  advantage  to  him 
in  clearing  away  mists  and  difficulties,  in  harmoni2ring  and  systematizing 
his  religious  knowledge,  in  opening  views  into  remoter  fields  of  truth,  in 
guiding  and  quickening  his  mind  generally  in  its  contemplation  of 
Teligious  truth."  —  The  College  Courant. 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper. 

Stuart.  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentaries  by 
3Ioses  Stuart,  late  Professor  in  Andover  Theology 
ica I  Seminary f  viz. 

Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Third  Edition. 
Edited  and  Revised  by  Prof.  R.  D.C.  Robbins.  12mo.  S2.25 

"  Rcfrarding  it  in  all  its  relations,  its  antecedents  and  consequents,  we 
pronounce  it  the  most  important  Commentary  which  has  appeared  in 
this  country  on  this  Epistle."  —  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"  This  contribution  by  Prof.  Stuart  has  justly  taken  a  high  place 
among  the  Commentaries  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and,  with  his 
other  works,  will  always  be  held  in  high  estimation  by  students  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures."  —  iV.  Y.  Observer. 

"  The  production  of  one  of  the  first  biblical  scholars  of  our  age,  on  the 
most  important  of  all  the  doctrinal  books  of  the  New  Testament,  it 
deserves  the  careful  study,  not  only  of  those  who  agree  with  Prof.  Stuart 
in  his  theological  and  exegetical  principles,  but  of  those  who  earnestly 
dissent  from  some  of  his  views  in  both  respects." —  Watchman  and  Reflector. 

Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the   Hebrews.     Third 

EditioD.     Edited  and  Revised  by  Prof.  R.  D.  C.  Robbins. 

12mo.  $2.25 

"As  a  commentator,  Prof  Stuart  was  especially  arduous  and  faithful 
in  following  up  the  thought,  and  displaying  the  connection  of  a  passage, 
and  his  work  as  a  scholar  will  bear  comparison  with  any  that  have  since 
appeared  on  either  side  of  the  Atlantic."  —  American  Presbyterian. 

Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse.    Vol.  II.  only,  containing 
all  the  Commentary.     (A  few  leaves  water-stained.)  $2.50 

Commentary  on  Eeelesiastes.  Second  Edition.  Edited 
and  Revised  by  Prof.  R.  D.  C.  Robbins.     12mo.      $1.50 

"A  most  thorough,  plain,  careful,  faithful  Commentary." — Independent. 

"  The  first  characteristic  of  Professor  Stuart  as  a  commentator  is  the 
exhaustive  thoroughness  of  his  labors.  His  exegesis  is  in  general  skilful 
and  felicitous,  especially  in  bringing  out  the  meaning  of  the  obscure  pas- 
sages, and  adding  new  and  delicate  shades  of  thought  to  the  more  obvious 
and  superficial  sense."  —  North  American  Review. 

"  One  of  the  ripest  and  most  interesting  of  Dr.  Stuart's  works."  — 
The  Lutheran. 

Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Proverbs.    12mo.        $1.75 

"  This  is  the  last  work  from  the  pen  of  Prof.  Stuart.  Both  this  Com- 
mentary and  the  one  preceding  it,  on  Eeelesiastes,  exhibit  a  mellowness 
of  spirit  which  savors  of  the  good  man  ripening  for  heaven  ;  and  the  style 
is  more  condensed,  and,  in  that  respect  more  agreeable,  than  in  some  of 
the  works  which  were  written  in  the  unabated  freshness  and  exuberant 
vigor  of  his  mind.  In  learning  and  critical  acumen  they  are  equal  to 
his  former  works.  No  English  reader,  we  venture  to  say,  can  elsewhere 
find  so  complete  a  philological  exposition  of  these  two  important  books 
of  the  Old  Testament."  —  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

11-74 


Books  Published  by  W,  F.  Draper. 

Historical  Development  of  Speculative  Philosophy  from 
Kant  to  Hegel.  From  the  German  of  Dr.  H.  M.  Chalt- 
BAEUS.  With  an  Introductory  Note  by  Sir  William 
Hamilton.    12mo.  $1.50 

"  One  of  the  best  of  the  many  Introductions  which  have  been  prepared 
to  lead  the  inquirer  to  a  knowledge  of  the  recent  speculative  philosophy." 
— Bihliotheca  Sacra. 

"  Those  who  are  in  search  of  knowledge  on  this  perplexed  subject, 
without  having  time  to  investigate  the  original  sources  for  information, 
will  receive  great  assistance  from  this  careful,  thorough,  and  perspicuous 
analysis." —  Biblical  Rqjcrtory  and  Princeton  Review. 

"  Nowhere  in  the  same  compass  is  ingenious  scepticism,  as  associated 
with  philosophy  and  drawn  from  it  by  false  speculative  reasonings,  more 
forcibly  exposed  and  rebutted  by  fact  and  argument." — Recorder. 


Studies  in  Philosophy  and  Theology.   By  Joseph  Haven, 
D.D.,  Professor  in  Chicago  Theol.  Sem.     12mo.        $2.00 

"  This  work  is  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first  part  contains  Essays 
having  the  following  titles  :  Philosophy  of  Sir  William  Hamilton ;  Mill 
versus  Hamilton  ;  the  Moral  Faculty  ;  Province  of  Imagination  in  Sacred 
Oratory;  the  Ideal  and  the  Actual.  The  second  part  contains  Essays  on 
Natural  Theology ;  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  Theology  as  a  Science 
'^its  dignity  and  value;  Place  and  Value  of  Miracles  in  the  Christian 
System  ;  Sin  as  related  to  Human  Nature  and  the  Divine  Mind  ;  Arian- 
ism,  the  Natural  Development  of  the  Views  held  by  the  Early  Church 
Fathers. 

"  Dr.  Haven  has  exhibited  much  ability  and  a  good  spirit  in  discussing 

various  controverted  questions  in  philosophy  and  theology Men 

who  differ  from  the  author  in  some  of  his  speculations  will  be  pleased 
with  his  distinctness  of  thought  and  perspicuity  of  style."  —  Bib,  Sacra. 

"  Dr.  Haven  writes  with  clearness,  and  with  the  ease  of  a  man  who  has 
made  a  thorough  study  of  the  subjects  which  he  undertakes  to  deal  with." 
—The  Presbyterian. 

"  They  grapple  earnestly  and  clearly  with  the  great  problems  now  agi- 
tating the  world  of  philosophy  and  theology." — American  Presbyterian. 

"  Professor  Haven  gives  us  in  this  condensed  form  the  fruitage  of  his 
life-thoughts  upon  the  grandest  themes  that  can  engage  the  human  atten- 
tion  We  deem  it  no  more  than  just  to  say,  that  in  this  volume 

philosophy  and  faith  blend,  each  strengthening  the  other,  to  a  degree  un- 
surpassed in  any  work  of  the  kind."  —  Chicago  Evening  Journal. 

Mediation.    The  Function  of  Thought.     16mo.         $1.25 

"  This  is  a  fragment  —  perhaps  it  were  better  to  say  it  is  a  foundation, 
laid  in  preparation  for  a  promised  superstructure.  "  Mediation,"  in  the 
title,  designates  the  whole  work.  In  the  present  volume  the  author  en- 
deavors to  "show  the  base  which  exists  in  the  normal  constitution  ot 
humanity,"  for  the  truth  which  he  is  subsequently  to  build  up  before  us 
in  its  symmetrical  completeness.  He  now  discusses  the  function  ot 
thought  in  man,  as  distinguishing  him  from  all  other  animals,  not  only 
in  degree,  but  in  kind."  —  Christian  Union. 


Books  Published  by  W  F.  Draper. 

Angel  over  the  Right  Shoulder,  The ;  or  the  Begiuning  ol 
a  New  Year.     By  the  Author  of  "  Sunny  side.      40  cents. 

"It  is  as  provokingly  short  as  it  is  exquisitely  beautiful.*'  —  Boston 
Recorder. 

"  What  a  blessed  thing  is  a  sunny  spirit,  ever  cheerful  and  happy,  and 
ever  diffusing  joy  over  all  around  it.  Such  a  spirit  is  the  Author  of 
"  Sunny  Side."  She  comes  to  us  again  as  a  living  angel  —  in  good  omen 
over  the  right  shoulder.  We  commend  it  to  all  mothers,  and  especially 
to  all  Mrs.  Jellabys."  —  Independent. 

Carlyle,  Thomas.    Latter-Day  Pamphlets.    12mo.     $1.00 

Contents. —  The  Present  Time. — Model  Prisons. — Downing  Street. 
— The  New  Downing  Street.  —  Stump  Orator.  —  Parliaments.— 
Hudson's  Statue.  —  Jesuitism. 

A  Collection  of  the  Proverbs  of  all  Nations.  Compared, 
Explained,  and  Illustrated.  By  Walter  B.  Kelly. 
12mo.  $1.25 

"  This  is  one  of  those  books,  like  Roget's  Thesaurus,  Haydn's  Dic- 
tionary of  Dates,  and  Lippincott's  Pronouncing  Gazetteer,  which  contains 
a  vast  amount  of  information  in  a  very  small  space  —  books  that  a  writer 
cannot  afford  to  be  without,  for  they  contain  information  that  by  days  of 
research  in  libraries  one  would  hardly  be  able  to  obtain  This  collection 
contaams  all  the  proverbs  which  are  familiar  in  all  nations.  They  are 
classified  under  various  heads,  such  as  Women,  Love,  Marriage,  Home, 
Self-conceit,  Ingratitude,  and  so  on.  There  is  also  a  full  index,  which 
enables  one  at  once  to  find  any  particular  proverb.  Another  excellent 
feature  is,  that  when  a  proverb  is  taken  from  another  language,  not  only 
the  English,  but  the  original  is  given.  The  book  is  replete  with  good 
things.  It  supplies  a  want  that  many  a  one  has  felt  —  a  want  that  no 
dictionary,  gazetteer,  or  book  of  quotations  now  supplies." — College 
Courant. 
"It  is  not  possible,  perhaps,  to  collect  the  proverbial  wisdom  of  the 

world  in  any  more  attractive  form  than  this  of  Mr.  Kelly's As  a 

book  for  the  library,  an  armory  where  a  writer  or  a  speaker  may  be  armed 
and  equipped  in  a  single  line ;  as  a  book  for  the  centre-table,  something 
that  you  can  read  a  page  or  twenty  pages  of,  have  your  reading  cut  short 
anywhere,  and  still  be  complete  and  intensely  interesting  besides,  —  as  a 
book  for  either  of  these  purposes,  the  "  Proverbs  of  all  Nations  "  will  be 
found  very  acceptable.  Certain  it  is,  at  least,  that  "  you  may  go  farther 
aiid  fare  worse." — Christian  Freeman. 

Value  of  the  Study  of  Church  History  in  Ministerial 

Education.    A  Lecture  delivered  to  the  Senior  Class  of 

Andover  Theological  Seminary.     By  Egbert  C.  Smyth. 

8vo.     Paper,  25  cents. 

God's  Ownership  of  the  Sea.    By  Leonard  Swain,  D.D. 

Reprinted  from  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra.     Paper,       25  cents. 

A  remarkably  interesting  Essay  on  the  oflBco  and  uses  of  the  sea. 

2-74 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper. 

Political  Economy.  Designed  as  a  Text-Book  for  Colleges. 
By  John  Bascom,  A.M.,  Professor  in  Williams  College. 
12mo.     pp.  366.  $1.50 

"It  goes  over  the  whole  ground  in  a  logical  order.  The  matter  is 
perspicuously  arranged  under  distinct  chapters  and  sections ;  it  is  a  com- 
pendious exhibition  of  the  principles  of  the  science  without  prolonged 
disquisitions  on  particular  points."  —  Princeton  Review. 

"  This  is  a  valuable  work  upon  a  subject  of  much  interest.  Professor 
Bascom  writes  well,  and  his  book  makes  an  excellent  manual."  —  Boston 
Recorder. 

"  The  book  is  worthy  a  careful  study,  both  for  the  views  it  contains 
and  as  a  mental  training."  —  Evening  Express. 

Questions  on  Kuhner's  Elementary  Greek   Grammar. 

By  Charles  W.  Bateman,  LL.D.  ;   with  Modifications 

and  Notes  by  Samuel  H.  Taylor,  LL.D.,  Principal  of 

Phillips  Academy.  12mo.    pp.57.    Paper  covers.     40 cts. 

These  *•  Questions  "  are  a  valuable  aid  to  the  pupil  in  making  his 
knowledge  of  the  principles  of  the  Grammar  more  definite,  and  in  fixing 
them  more  pennanently  in  his  mind.  They  will  also  greatly  aid  the 
teacher  to  systematize  his  work_,  and  lighten  the  labor  of  teaching.  These 
"  Questions,"  though  prepared  with  special  reference  to  Kiihner's  Gram- 
mar, are  equally  applicable  to  any  elementary  Greek  Grammar.  They 
are  a  valuable  aid. 

Doderlein's  Hand-Book  of  Latin  Synonymes.    Translated 

by  Rev.  H.  H.  Arxold,  B.A.,  with  an  Introduction  by 

S.  H.  Taylor,  LL.D.     New  Edition,  with  an  Index  of 

Greek  words.     16mo.     pp.  267.  $1.25 

"  The  present  hand-book  of  Doderlein  is  remarkable  for  the  brevity,  dis- 
tinctness, perspicuity,  and  appositeness  of  its  definitions.  It  will  richly 
reward  not  merely  the  classical,  but  the  general  student  for  the  labor  he 
may  devote  to  it.     It  is  difficult  to  open  the  volume,  even  at  random, 

without  discovering  some  hint  which  may  be  useful  to  a  theologian 

From  the  preceding  extracts  it  will  be  seen  that  this  hand-book  is  useful 
in  elucidating  many  Greek,  as  well  as  Latin  synonymes."  —  Bib.  Sacra. 

"  The  little  volume  mentioned  above,  introduced  to  the  American  public 
by  an  eminent  scholar  and  teacher,  Samuel  H.  Taylor,  LL.D.,  is  one  of 
the  best  helps  to  the  thorough  appreciation  of  the  nice  shades  of  meaning 
in  Latin  words  that  have  met  my  eye.  It  deserves  the  attention  of  teachers 
and  learners,  and  will  amply  reward  patient  study." — Prof.  E.  D.  Sanborn. 

"  We  have  been  acquainted  for  some  years  with  the  merits  of  this  work, 
and  cordially  commend  it  as  one  of  the  best  manuals  on  Latin  synonymes, 
and  admirably  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  student." — Evangelical  Review. 

"It is  well  adapted  to  school  purposes,  and  embraces  all  that  is  necessary 
on  this  subject.  He  has  often  introduced  also  the  nearest  corresponding 
expression  both  in  the  Greek  and  German  languages,  and  placed  them 
gide  by  side  with  the  Latin  synonyme."-  -Evening  Express. 

"  We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  this  is  the  best  work  on  Latin 
Bynonymes  that  has  yet  been  published." —  Universalist  Quarterly, 

3-74 


Books  Published  by  W,  F,  Draper, 

Translations  by  Wm,  G,  T.  Shedd^  formerly  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Andover  Theol.  Setn, 

Eloquence  a  Virtue;  or,Outlines  ofa  Systematic  Rhetoric. 
From  the  German  of  Dr.  Francis  Theremin.  With  an 
Introductory  Essay  by  Prof.  Shedd.     12mo.  $1.00 

"  The  doctrine  of  the  treatise  is,  that  eloquence  is  distinguished  from 
philosophy,  poetry,  and  all  other  forms  of  expressed  thought  in  having 
for  its  object  to  move  men  to  action,  and  that  this  is  accomplished  by  ex- 
citing their  active,  i.e.  their  moral  faculties,  etc.  . . .  The  subject  is  ably 
unfolded  in  this  compact  yet  thorough  treatise.  What,  however,  is  ex- 
hibited by  Theremin  in  a  dry  light,  in  the  form  of  naked  philosophic 
statement,  is  displayed  by  Professor  Shedd  in  his  Introductory  Essay, 
with  that  glow  of  life,  beauty,  and  force  which  distinguishes  his  writings.'* 
—  Princeton  Review. 

"  The  Introductory  Essay  which  Professor  Shedd  has  prefixed  to  this 
valuable  Treatise,  is  elaborate,  vigorous,  impressive.  It  excites  the  mind 
not  only  to  thought,  but  also  to  the  expression  of  thought  —  to  inward 
and  outward  activity.  The  whole  volume  is  characterized  by  freshness 
and  originality  of  remark,  a  purity  and  earnestness  of  moral  feeling."  — 
Bihliotheca  Sacra. 

"  It  is  not  a  work  of  surface  suggestion,  but  of  thorough  and  philoso- 
phic analysis,  and,  as  such,  is  of  great  value  to  the  student,  and  especially 
to  him  Avho  habitually  addresses  men  on  the  most  important  theme."  — 
Congregational  Quarterly. 

A  Manual  of  Church  History.  By  Henry  E.  F.  Guericke, 

Doctor  and  Professor  of  Theology  in  Halle. 
Ancient  Church.      Comprising    the   First   Six    Centuries. 
8vo.  $3.00 

"  Characterized  by  research,  devoutness,  firm  grasp  of  evangelical  truth, 
and  careful  exhibition  of  the  practical  as  well  as  the  intellectual  aspects 
of  Christianity."  —  North  British  Review. 

"  We  regard  Professor  Shedd's  version  as  a  happy  specimen  of  the 
tramfusion,  rather  than  a  translation,  which  many  of  the  German  treatises 
should  receive.  The  style  of  his  version  is  far  superior  to  that  of  the 
original."  —  Bihliotheca  Sacra. 

"  Guerike's  Manual  is  complete  in  the  particular  lines  of  history  he  has 
chosen,  and  is  a  most  useful  and  reliable  book  for  the  theological  class- 
room. Professor  Shedd  has  wisely  translated  with  freedom,  and  has 
improved  the  structure  of  the  work." — Noncotiformist. 

"  Perhaps  it  would  be  difficult  in  the  same  space  to  find  so  much  mat- 
ter, or  so  complete  a  history  during  the  period  of  which  it  treats,  as  is 
given  in  this  Manual.  The  volume  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  of  its 
kind  in  the  department  of  Ecclesiastical  History." — Evangelical  Review. 

Mediaeval  Church.    (From  a.d.  590  to  1073.)  $1.50 

"This  portion  of  Gucricke's  Church  History  continues  the  account 
down  to  A.D.  1073,  wlicn  Hildcbrand  ascended  the  Papal  chair  as  Greg- 
ory VII.  With  the  previous  volume,  this  addition  comprises  the  History 
of  the  Church  during  the  first  ten  centuries. 

6-74 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper, 

Hymns  and  Choirs :  Or  the  Matter  and  the  Manner  of  the 
Service  of  Song  in  the  House  of  the  Lord.  By  Austin 
Phelps  and  Edwards  A.  Park,  Professors  in  Andover, 
and  Daniel  L.  Furber,  Pastor  at  Newton.    12mo.    $1.50 

**  Perhaps  nc  other  volume  in  the  English  language  discusses  the  sub- 
ject of  Christian  Psalmody  more  thoroughly,  or  on  the  whole,  with  better 
taste  and  judgment  .....*  Considered  as  a  treatise  on  the  art  of  selecting 
psalms  and  hymns,  from  whatever  collection,  for  use  in  public  song,  and 
of  guiding  that  part  of  worship  in  a  Christian  assembly,  it  is  a  book  to 
be  studied  by  all  pastors,  and  by  all  expectants  of  the  sacred  office."  — 
New  Englander. 

*'  There  is  a  great  deal  of  curious  information  in  this  volume  about 
hymns,  as  well  as  a  thorough  discussion  of  the  principles  of  the  service 
of  song.' "  —  Congregational  Quarterly . 

Ministerial  Culture.  By  Austin  Phelps,  Professor  of 
Sacred  Rhetoric  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  18mo. 
Paper,       *  12cts. 

Lectures  on  Pastoral  Theology.    By  Enoch  Pond,  D.D., 

Professor  in  Bangor  Theol.  Sem.    2d  ed.     12mo.        $1.75 
"  Though  specially  adapted  to  Congregational  churches  and  ministers, 

they  will  be  found  of  use  to  all ;  for  they  are  wise  and  prudent.     All  the 

special  relations  and  duties  of  the  ministry  are  fully  and  clearly  discussed." 

—  American  Presbyttrian  Theological  Review. 

"  No  pastor,  no  young  pastor  more  especially,  will  carefully  ponder  the 

suggestions  here  made  without  profit."  — Methodist  Protestant. 

Preacher  and  Pastor,  The.    By  Fenelon,  Herbert,  Baxter, 

and  Campbell.  Edited  by  Prof  E.  A.  Park.  12mo.  $1.50 

Fenelon's  "  Dialogues  concerning  Eloquence,"  Herbert's  "  Country 
Parson,"  Baxter's  "  Eeformed  Pastor,"  and  Campbell's  "  Lectures  on 
Pulpit  Eloquence." 

Pulpit  Elocution.  Comprising  Eemarks  on  the  Effect  of 
Manner  in  Public  Discourse ;  the  Elements  of  Elocution 
applied  to  the  Reading  of  the  Scriptures,  Hymns,  and  Ser- 
mons ;  with  Observations  on  the  Principles  of  Gesture ;  and 
a  Selection  of  Exercises  in  Reading  and  Speaking.  By 
William  Russell.  With  an  Introduction  by  Prof  E.  A. 
Park  and  Rev.  E.  N.  Kirk.    12mo.    Second  ed.       $1.50 

"  The  plan  of  it  is  admirably  adapted  to  aid  the  student,  the  minister, 
and  other  public  speakers  in  the  acquisition  of  that  practical  knowledge 
of  speaking  as  an  art,  which  is  of  very  great  importance  to  their  influ- 
ence and  usefulness."  —  Philadelphia  Christian  Observer. 

"  It  is  one  of  the  most  thorough  publications  upon  the  subject,  and  ia 
admirably  addressed  to  the  correction  of  the  various  defects  which  di« 
minish  the  influence  of  pulpit  discourse.  —  Literary  World. 

6-7* 


Books  Publisfied  by  W,  F.  Draper, 

Eemarks  on  the  Internal  Evidence  for  the  Truth  of  Re- 
vealed Religion.  By  Thomas  Erskine,  Esq.,  Advocate. 
Third  American,  from  Fifth  Edinburgh  Ed.  16mo.    75  cts. 

"  The  entire  treatise  cannot  fail  to  commend  the  positions  which  it  ad- 
vocates to  intelligent  and  considerate  minds.  It  is  one  of  the  best, 
perhaps  the  best,  of  all  the  discussions  of  this  momentous  subject,"  — 
Congregatio7}alist. 

"  Tliis  argument  of  Erskine  for  the  Internal  Evidence  of  the  Truth  of 
Kevealed  Reliirion,  is  the  most  compact,  natural,  and  convincing  we 
haixe  ever  read  from  any  author."  —  Christian  Chronicle. 

"No  man  ought  to  consider  himself  as  having  studied  theology  unless 
he  has  read  and  pondered  and  read  again  *  Erskine  on  the  Internal  Evi- 
dence.* " — Independent. 

Writings  of  Archhishop  Wliatehj.  Published  under  the 
sanction  of  the  author,  from  the  latest  revised  editions  ;  viz. 

Essays  on  some  of  the  DiflB.ciilties  in  the  "Writings  of  St. 
Paul.    12mo.     Cloth  extra,  gilt  tops.  $1.50 

"Dr.  Whately's  writings  are  characterized  by  sound  thought  and  solid 
judgment.  Clear  and  solid  sense  is  his  peculiar  characteristic.  He  is 
often  ingenious,  generally  candid,  almost  ^ways  plain  and  transparent.'* 
—  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"An  excellent  work,"  —  New  York  Evangelist. 

"  The  Archbishop's  writings  are  a  part  of  the  sterling  theological  let- 
ters of  the  age,  and  ought  to  be  possessed  by  all  the  studious  and 
thoughtful." — Journal  and  Messenger. 

"  This  book  had  passed  through  at  least  eight  editions  in  England 
before  its  publication  in  this  country.  Dr.  Whately  is  always  entitled  to 
a  hearing.  Never  profound,  he  is  always  clear  ;  never  very  original,  he 
is  always  instructive ;  never  disgustingly  dogmatic,  he  always  seems  to 
feel  a  serene  assurance  that  he  has  exhausted  the  whole  subject,  and 
that  his  verdict  is  final ;  always  positive  and  didactic,  he  is  yet  never 
extreme,  but  always  takes  the  middle  and  moderate  view."  —  Watchman 
and  Rejlector. 

Essays  "on  some  of  the  Peeularities  of  the  Christian  Reli- 
gion, and  Historic  Doubts  concerning  Napoleon. 
12mo.  pp.  264  and  48.  Bound  in  1  vol.  Cloth  extra, 
gilt  tops.  $1.50 

Historic  Doubts  concerning  Napoleon.  12mo.  Pai)er 
covers,  25  cents  ;  cloth,  50  cents. 

About  the  year  1821  Whately  published  this  Essay  anonymously.  It 
was  designed  as  an  answer  to  Hume's  objections  to  the  credibility  of  the 
Christian  miracles.  Following  Hume's  method,  Whately  gravely  argued 
the  improbability  of  the  existence  of  the  first  Napoleon,  and  demonstrated 
that,  on  Hume's  principles,  the  testimony  in  relation  thereto  could  not  ba 
credited. 

T-74 


Books  Published  by  W,  F.  Draper. 

The  Contemplations  and  Letters  of  Henry  Dorney  ol 
TJley,  Gloucestershire.    12mo.  $1.00 

The  Contemplations  and  Letters  of  Henry  Dorney  were  held  in  high 
estimation  by  Madam  Phebe  Phillips.  The  copy  which  she  used,  came 
down  to  her  as  an  heirloom  from  her  pious  ancestors,  and  was  ranked, 
on  her  private  table,  next  to  her  Bible  and  hymn-book.  So  highly  did 
she  esteem  the  work,  that  she  copied  out,  with  her  own  hand,  a  large 
part  -of  the  volume  for  the  use  of  a  friend.  It  is  now  reprinted  as  a 
precious  memorial  of  one  of  the  honored  founders  of  the  Theological 
Institution. 

Bible  History  of  Prayer.  By  C.  A. Goodrich.  12mo.  $1.25 
**  The  aim  of  this  little  volume  is  to  embody  an  account  of  the  delight- 
fvL  and  successful  intercourse  of  believers  with  heaven  for  some  four 
thousand  years.  The  author  has  indulged  a  good  deal  in  narrative, 
opening  and  explaining  the  circumstances  which  gave  birth  to  the  several 
prayers. 

"  The  author  does  not  aim  to  write  a  treatise  on  prayer,  or  to  comment 
on  all  the  references  to  prayer  in  chronological  order,  but  to  dwell  on  its 
nature  and  importance,  and  make  suggestions  on  the  most  important 
allusions  to  prayer,  as  indicated  all  along  for  four  thousand  years.  He 
explains  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  prayers  of  these  holy  men." 
—  Religious  Union. 

Messianic  Prophecy  and  the  Life  of  Christ.  By  Rev. 
W.  S.  Kennedy.     12mo.  $1.25 

*'  The  plan  of  the  author  is  to  collect  all  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament  referring  to  the  Messiah,  with  appropriate  comments  and  re- 
flections, and  then  to  pursue  the  subject  through  the  New  Testament  in 
the  life  of  Christ  as  he  appeared  among  men.  The  reader  will  find  the 
results  of  Hengstenberg  and  Neander  here  gathered  up,  and  presented  in 
a  readable  shjipe."  —The  Presbyterian. 

"  This  work  exhibits  the  prophetic  element  in  the  Messianic  argument 
in  an  analytical  shape,  and  with  peculiar  force." — Episcopal  Recorder. 

"  The  general  idea  of  the  book  is  a  very  happy  one,  and  it  has,  on  the 
whole  been  well  wrought  out." — The  Lutheran. 

Five  Discourses  on  St.  Paul.  To  which  is  added  a  Dis- 
course on  Fatalism.  By  Adolphe  Monod.  Translated 
from  the  French  by  Rev.  J.  H.  Myers,  D.D.  12mo.  90  cts. 

"  The  aim  of  the  author  is  to  present  an  estimate  of  the  character, 
labors,  and  writings  of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  light  of  an  example,  and 
to  apply  the  principles  which  actuated  him,  and  which  he  maintained,  to 
Christians  of  the  present  day."  —  Boston  Journal. 

"A  book  unsurpassed  in  its  department,  in  any  language,  for  manly 
eloquence,  thorough  research,  profound  reflection,  a  most  earnest,  glow- 
ing, winning  Christian  spirit,  united  with  an  exact  appreciation  of  the 
great  Apostle's  character  and  work,  and  a-wise,  cautious,  but  bold  and 
unflinching,  application  of  his  teachings  to  the  times  in  which  we  live.  — 
The  Translator. 

"  A  masterly  and  most  eloquent  delineation  of  the  inner  life  of  the  great 
Apostle."  —  Evangelical  Quarterly. 

8-74 


Books  Published  by  W.  F.  Draper. 

Haley.  An  Examination  of  the  Alleged  Discrepancies 
of  the  Bible.  By  John  W.  Haley,  M.A.  With  an  In- 
troduction by  Alvah  Hovey,  D.  D.,  Professor  in  the 
Newton  Theological  Institution.  Crown  8vo.  pp.  xii. 
and  473.  $2.25 

The  Look  consists  of  two  parts :  Part  I.,  about  fifty  pages,  contains 
Dissertations  on  the  Origin,  Design,  and  Eesults  of  the  Discrepancies. 
Part  II.,  is  given  to  the  Explanation  and  Harmony  of  the  Discrepancies, 
under  the  following  heads  :  1.  Doctrinal  Discrepancies;  2.  Ethical  Dis- 
crepancies ;  3.  Historical  Discrepancies.  Three  Indexes  affoi'd  an  easy 
reference  to  topics  and  passages  of  Scripture. 

"  The  work  is  the  fruit  of  lengthened  and  laborious  research.  It  will 
be  of  great  use  to  every  minister  who  will  study  it.  Eveiy  minister  ought 
to  be  familiar  with  the  principles  stated  in  the  work.  I  do  not  know  any 
volume  which  gives  to  the  English  reader  such  a  compressed  amount  of 
suggestion  and  instruction  on  this  theme  as  is  given  in  this  volume.  So 
far  as  I  have  examined  it,  I  discover  no  trace  of  a  sectai'ian  spirit  in  the 
manuscript."  —  Prof.  Edwards  A.  Park. 

"  It  is  a  timely  book,  and  supplies  what  was  greatly  needed  by  thou- 
sands who  are  not  accustomed  to  careful  investigation  or  have  not  the 
facilities  for  it.  What  may  be  looked  for  among  several  commentaries 
is  here  embodied  in  a  single  volume,  and  treated  clearly  and  compactly. 
The  seeming  discrepancies  exist,  and  trouble  many.  Mr.  Haley  explains 
them.  He  first  shows,  generally,  how  they  have  originated ;  then  that 
they  do  not  all  exist  without  sorne  good  reason  ;  then  that  when  they  are 
aircountcd,  they  do  not  vitiate  the  text ;  then  he  takes  them  up,  one  by 
one,  and  explains  them." —  The  Methodist. 

"A  book  so  costly  in  great  qualities,  yet  so  cheap  and  accessible  to 
all ;  one  so  scholarly  and  yet  so  simple  and  usable ;  one  so  creditable  to 
its  author,  and  yet  so  modestly  sent  forth,  does  not  every  day  appear. 
As  an  example  of  thorough  and  painstaking  scholarship,  as  a  serviceable 
hand-book  for  all  Bible  students,  and  as  a  popular  defence  of  revealed 
truth,  it  will  take  high  rank,  and  fill  an  important  place  which  up  to  this 
time  has  been  conspicuously  vacant."  —  Congregdtionalist. 

"  It  would  be  difficult,  by  any  amount  of  labor,  to  produce  anything 
more  convincing  and  satisfactory."  —  The  Interior. 

"An  excellent  discussion  of  the  subject." —  Christian  Observer. 

*'  Sound  learning,  good  common  sense,  exact  statement,  brevity,  per- 
spicuity, to  a  remarkable  degree  characterize  the  work  from  beginning 
to  end."  —  New  Covenant. 

"  Its  solutions  of  difficulties  are  sensible  and  sound."  —  Presb.  at  Work. 

"  We  earnestly  commend  it  to  the  attention  of  all  who  desire  for  them- 
Belves,  or  for  the  benefit  of  othei'S,  a  more  thorough,  consistent,  and  as- 
suring knowledge  of  the  Bible."  —  The  Episcopalian. 

"  Mr.  Haley  has  done  Bible  readers  excellent  service  by  the  publication 
of  this  volume."  —  Christian  Union. 

"  A  volume  which  will  be  found  extremely  convenient."  —  Watchman 
and  Reflector. 

26-75 


P'^iblications  of  W.  F.  Draver. 


QTHEOLOGIA  GERMANICA,  Which  setteth  forth  many  fair  lineaments 
of  Divine  Truth,  and  saitli  very  lofty  and  lovely  things  touchinj^  a  Terfect  Life. 
Edited  by  Dii.  Tfeiffek,  from  the  only  complete  manuscript  yet  known. 
Translated  from  the  German  by  SuSA^•^•A  Winkworth.  With  a  Preface  by 
the  Rev.  Chakles  Kixgsley,  Kector  of  Eversley ;  and  a  Letter  to  the  Trans- 
lator, by  the  Chevalier  Buxsex^,  D.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  etc. ;  and  an  Introduction 
by  Trop.  Calvin  E.  Stowe,  D.  D.    275  pp.    IGmo.  Cloth,  $=1.50. 

Tliis  treatise  was  discovered  by  Luther,  who  first  brought  it  into  notice  by  an  edition  which 
he  published  in  151C,  of  which  he  says  :  "  And  I  will  say,  tliough  it  be  boasting  of  myself,  and 
'I  speak  as  a  fool,'  that,  next  to  the  Bible  and  St.  Augustine,  no  book  hath  ever  come  into  my 
hands  whence  I  have  learnt,  or  would  wish  to  learn,  more  of  what  God  and  Christ,  and  man, 
and  all  things,  arc."' 

"  The  times  and  the  circumstances  in  which  this  most  rich,  thoughtful,  and  spiritually 
quickening  little  treatise  was  produced,  —  the  national  and  ecclesiastical  tendencies  and  influ-j 
ences  whiclj  invested  its  author,  and  which  gave  tone,  direction,  and  pressure  to  his  thoughts, 
—  are  amply  and  well  set  forth  in  the  preface  by  Miss  Wiukworth,  and  tlie  letter  of  Bunsen. 
The  treatise  itself  is  richly  deserving  of  the  eulogies  upon  it  so  emphatically  and  affectionately 
uttered  by  Prof.  Stowe  and  Mr.  Kingsley,  and,  long  before  them,  by  Luther,  who  said  that  it 
had  profited  him  '  more  than  any  other  book,  save  only  the  Bible  and  the  works  of  Augustine.' 
Sin,  as  a  universal  disease  and  defilement  of  the  nnture  of  man  ;  Christ,  as  an  indwelling  life, 
light,  and  heavenly  power  ;  Holiness,  as  the  utmost  good  for  the  soul  ;  and  Heaven,  as  the 
state  or  place  of  the  consummation  of  this  holiness,  with  the  consequent  vision  of  God,  and 
the  ineflUbie  joy  and  peace,— these  are  the  theme  of  the  book.  Audit  has  the  grand,  and  in 
this  day  the  so  rare  and  almost  singular  merit,  of  having  been  prompted  by  a  real  and  deep  relig- 
ious experience,  and  of  having  been  written,  not  with  outward  assistance,  but  with  the  enthu- 
siasm, the  spiritual  wisdom,  and  the  immense  inward  freedom  and  energy,  of  a  soul  itself  con- 
scious of  union  with  Christ,  and  exulting  in  the  sense  of  being  made,  through  him, '  a  partaker 
of  the  Divine  nature.' 

"  Those  who  have  known  the  most  of  Christ  will  value  most  this  "  golden  treatise."  Those 
\rhose  experience  of  the  divine  truth  has  been  deepest  and  most  central  will  find  the  most  in 
it  to  instruct  and  to  quicken  them.  To  such  it  will  be  an  invaluable  volume  worth  thousands 
upon  thousands  of  modern  scientific  or  hortatorj'  essays  upon  "  Keligion  made  easy." 

"  It  is  printed  by  Mr.  Draper,  at  the  Andover  press,  in  the  old  English  style,  with  beautiful 
can  fulness  and  skill,  and  is  sent,  post  paid,  to  all  who  remit  him  one  dollar."—  Jmlejiemhnt. 

"  Tlie  work  is  at  once  a  literary  curiosity  and  a  theological  gem."  —  Puritan  Recorder. 

"  This  little  volume,  which  is  brought  out  in  antique  type,  is,  apart  from  its  intrinsic  value,  a 
curiosity  of  literature.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  harbinger  of  the  Protestant  Kei'ormation." — 
Evening  Traveller. 

THE    CONFESSIONS    OF    ST.    AUGUSTINE.     Edited,  with  an 

Introduction,  by  Prof.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd.     8L50. 

"In  this  beautiful  edition  of  Augustine's  Confessions,  published  in  the  antique  style,  the 
translation  has  been  carefully  revised  by  Prof.  Shedd,  of  Andover,  from  a  comparison  with  the 
Latin  text.  Ills  Introduction  presents  a  fine  analysis  of  Augustine's  religious  experience  in  its 
bearing  upon  his  theological  system.  Both  the  intellect  and  the  heart  of  the  modern  preacher 
may  be  refreshed  and  stimulated  by  the  frequent  perusal  of  these  confessions."  —  Inde/icndent. 

"Prof.  Shedd  iias  earned  our  heartfelt  thanks  for  this  elegant  edition  of  Augustine's  Confes- 
sions. The  book  is  profitable  for  the  Christian  to  study,  and  we  would  commend  it  as  a  daily 
companion  in  the  closet  of  the  intelligent  believer  who  desires  to  be  taught  the  way  to  holiness 
through  communion  of  the  Spirit.  Prof.  Shedd's  Introduction  is  a  masterly  essay,  which  itself 
is  a  volume  for  attentive  reading.  It  ought  to  be  read  before  the  book  is  begun.  Thorough, 
searching,  and  discriminating  beyond  the  facts  it  communicates,  its  instructions  and  hints  are 
suggestive  and  invaluable."  — JV.  Y.  Observer. 

"  This  13  a  beautiful  edition  of  a  precious  work.  The  Confessions  of  Augustine  are  so  honest, 
that  we  easily  become  enthusiastic  in  their  praise.  The  depth  of  his  pirty,  the  boldness  of  his 
imagination,  the  profoundness  of  his  genius,  his  extravagant  conceptions,  his  very  straining  and 
stretching  of  philosophical  and  biblical  statements,  have  all  a  certain  charm  which  ensures  for 
his  works  an  enduring  popularity."— 2>(&.  Sacra,  18W,  p.  C,7l. 

"We  have  long  wanted  to  see  just  such  an  edition  of  Augustine's  Confessions.  The  editor 
has  done  a  public  service  in  introducing  it ;  and  its  typographical  beauty  is  no  small  reconi' 
mendation  of  it." —  Pre^terian,  June  23, 1860. 

5 


WARREN   F.  DRAPER, 
PUBLISHER    AND    BOOKSELLER, 

ANDOVER,     MASS., 

Publishes  and  offers  for  Sale  the  following  Works,  which  will  be  sent, 
post-paid,  on  receipt  of  the  sums  affixed. 


GARDINER'S  GREEK  HARMONY.  A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels 
in  Greek,  according  to  the  Text  of  Tischendorf,  with  a  Collation  of  the  Textus 
Keceptus,  and  of  the  Texts  of  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tregelles.  By 
Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  tjchool.  8vo.  S3.00. 

"  A  very  important  matter  in  the  preparation  of  the  Harmony  is,  of  course,  the  choice  of  a  text. 
The  one  chosen  by  Professor  Gardiner  is  that  of  Tiscliendorl  's  eighth  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  text  was  ciioser.  because  '  it  embodied  the  latest  results  of  criticism,  having  had  the 
advantage  througliout  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  and  of  a  more  close  collation  of  tl\e  Codex  Vatican  us.' 
Professor  Gardiner  would,  indeed,  have  published  his  Harmony  more  than  a  year  ago,  but  waited 
till  opportunity  could  be  given  tor  consulting  this  last  edition  of  Tischendorf.  It  is  an  obvious 
merit  in  this  Harmony,  that  the  student  can  see  at  a  glance  whether  or  not  the  text  of  Tischendorf 
agrees  or  conflicts  witli  that  of  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tregelles  in  places  where  there  is  a  dif- 
ference of  oninion.  It  is  another  excellence  of  the  work  that  the  Greek  text  is  so  accurate,  evincing 
the  most  scrupuTous  care  and  thorough  scholarsliip  on  the  part  of  the  editor."—  BibJiotheca  Sacra. 

"  The  notes  of  the  author  are  marked  by  scholarship  and  good  sense.  The  student  will  find  it  a 
convenient  manual  for  the  study  of  the  Gospels,  oecause  he  sees  upon  one  and  the  same  page  the 
readings  of  the  principal  editions  and  manuscripts,  together  with  the  quotations  made  by  the  evan- 
gelists from  the  Old  Testumtwi."—  Princeton  Review. 

"Dr.  Gardiner's  work  has  been  well  done,  and  he  has  given  U8  a  Harmony  of  great  value."  — 
Quarterly  lievicio  Evang.  Luth.  Church. 

"  By  this  scholarly  work  Dr.  Gardiner  has  rendered  all  diligent  students  of  the  Gospel  narrative 
an  invaluable  service.  In  a  single  volume,  and  by  the  most  satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  several 
and  inspired  accounts  of  the  life  and  doings  of  our  Lord,  the  book  furnishes  the  best  results  of  the 
ablest  and  most  laborious  investigation  of  all  known  sources  of  knowledge  regarding  the  original 
eacred  text."—  Reformed  Church  Monthly. 

"  It  is  a  superior  work  of  its  kind."  —  Naticmal  Baptist. 

"  This  book,  tlu-  result  of  great  research  and  utmost  painstaking,  is  well  worthy  the  consideration 
of  all  Bible  scholars."-  Watchman  and  Reflector. 

GARDINER'S  ENGLISH  HARMONY.    A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels 
in  English,  according  to  the  Authorized  Version;  corrected  by  the  best  Critical 
Editions  of  the  Original.    By  Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Berke- 
ley Divinity  ifchool.    8vo.    Cloth,  S2  00. 
"The  Harmony  in  English,  the  title  of  which  is  given  above,  is  a  reproduction  of  the  Harmony 
In  Greek;  no  other  changes  being  made  tlian  such  as  were  required  to  fit  the  work  for  the  use  of  the 
English  reader  who  desires  to  learn  some  of  the  improvements  which  modem  criticism  has  made  in 
the  authorized  English  text."  —  Bihliot/ieca  Sacra. 

"  We  gladly  commend  this  Harmony  to  every  intelligent  reader  of  the  Scriptures.  The  need  of 
Buch  a  guide  is  felt  by  every  thoughtful  Churchman  at  least  once  a  year  — in  Holy  Week  — when 
he  desires  to  rend  the  events  of  each  day  in  the  order  in  which  they  happened  so  many  years  ago. 
We  do  not  think  that  our  laymen  know  how  much  they  will  be  helped  to  the  understanding  of  the 
Gospels  by  a  simple  Harmony,  perhaps  reads  as  we  suggested  above,  in  connection  with  soiue 
standard  Life  of  our  Lord."—  The  Churchman. 

LIFE  OP  CHRIST.    The  Life  of  our  Lord  in  the  Words  of  the  Gospels.    By 

Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School.    16mo. 

pp.- 256.    $1.00 

"  It  is  well  adapted  to  the  convenience  of  pastors,  to  the  needs  of  teachers  in  the  Bible-class  and 

Sabbath-school,  to  the  religious  instruction  of  families.    It  bids  fair  to  Introduce  improvements  into 

the  style  of  teaching  the  Bible  to  the  young."—  Bihlinthcca  Sacra. 

**  This  little  volume  will  not  onlj*  answer  as  a  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  for  the  use  of  those  who 
only  core  to  have  results,  but  it  will  be  an  excellent  book  to  read  at  family  prayers,  or  to  study  wita 
<  Bible-class."—  Christian  Union. 

(1) 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper. 


A  GUIDE   TO    READING   THE   HEBRE-W   TEXT  ;  for  the  Use  of 

Beginners.  By  Kev.  W.  H.  Vibbert,  il.  A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the 
Berkeley  Divinity  School.    12mo.    pp.  67.    $1.25. 

*•  The  aim  of  this  work  is  to  give  the  student  all  that  is  needful  to  enable  him  to  read  the  text  of 
the  Old  Testament,  keeping  rigorously  to  the  plan  of  stating  clearly  and  precisely  everything  that 
is  essential  to  the  purpose.  This  work  is  not  a  Hebrew  Grammar,  but  it  is  a  guide  and  a  help  to  the 
reading  of  the  text  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  One  thing  is  given  at  a  time,  with  exercises  for  practice, 
80  that  each  point  may  be  perfectly  comprehended.  It  is  hoped  that  the  book  is  so  constructed  ob 
to  enable  the  learner  to  read  the  Hebrew  text  without  the  services  of  the  living  teacher.  Nothing 
has  been  taken  for  granted  on  the  part  of  the  student.  By  a  systematic  and  progressive  plan  of 
arrangement,  which  he  must  follow  cfosely  and  steadily,  he  is  lead  on  from  section  to  section,  until 
oertect  familiarity  with  the  forms  and  sounds  of  characters  and  signs  is  acquired."  — -(4>(<Aor'«  Pr^, 

"  Mr.  Vibbert's  manual  is  what  it  claims  to  be.  It  really  gives,  in  a  perspicuous  and  exact  man- 
ner, an  initiation  into  the  mysteries  of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  the  rudiments  of  Hebrew  study  are 
all  contained  in  these  simple  rules  and  illustrated  in  these  practical  exercises.  The  method  is  the 
excellent  method  of  Kalisch,  which  insists  upon  orthography  as  the  needful  preliminary  to  gram- 
mar and  syntax.  One  who  faithfully  follows  Mr.  Vibbert'*  directions  will  be  able  to  use  with  profit 
the  lexicon  and  the  chrestomathy,  and  in  a  little  time  to  read  the  Word  of  the  Lord  in  the  charac- 
ter which  it  had  when  the  Scribes  expounded  it."  —  Christian  Register, 

BIQGS'S  O.  T.  EMENDATIONS.  Suggested  Emendations  of  the  Author- 
ized English  Version  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  Elias  Riggs,  Missionary  of 
the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  at  Constantinople.    12mo,    pp.  130.    f^l.OO. 

"  The  amendments  here  suggested  are  the  result,  not  of  a  systematic  revision  of  the  English  Ver- 
sion, which  I  have  never  attempted,  but  of  comparisons  made  in  the  course  of  translating  the  Scrip- 
tures into  the  Armenian  and  Bulgarian  languages.  They  are  offered  to  the  candid  consideration  of 
all  who  feel  especial  interest  in  the  correction  of  the  English  Version,  and  specially  of  those  provi- 
dentially called  to  the  work  of  translating  the  word  of  God  into  other  tongues."  —  Author's  Preface. 

"  W.  r.  Draper,  publisher  of  the  Bibliothcca  Sacra,  has  issued  an  interesting  and  suggestive  little 
treatise  written  by  Rev.  Elias  Kiggs,  Missionary  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  at  Constantinople,  which  is 
introduced  by  an  Introductory  Note  of  Prof.  Thayer  of  Andover.  It  is  intended  to  suggest  some  of 
the  philological  changes  in  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  rendered  advisable  by  the  advanced 
scholarship  in  Oriental  tongues,  attained  especially  by  our  missionaries  of  the  East.  The  criticism 
upon  the  New  Testament  has  been  very  full.  The  present  is  a  work  of  the  same  description  upon 
the  Old,  but  is  one  upon  which  fewer  eminent  scholars  have  entered.  Obscure  passages  are  found 
to  yield  their  long-hidden  meaning  through  an  acquaintance  with  the  idioms  of  Oriental  languages, 
and  a  personal  familiarity  with  the  unchanging  customs  of  that  stereotyped  land.  The  volume  is  a 
valuable  reflex  contribution  to  the  churches  at  the  West,  from  the  mission  fields  supported  by  their 
gifts  in  the  East.  It  comes  at  an  hour  when  its  modest  and  well-defended  suggestions  will  secure  a 
careful  examination  on  the  part  of  the  Biblical  scholars  now  engaged  in  Great  Britain  and  in  this 
country  upon  a  new  version  of  the  English  Bible."  —  Zion's  Herald. 

HEBRET;V  ENGLISH  PSALTER.  The  Book  of  Psalms,  in  Hebrew  and 
English,  arranged  in  Parallelism.    16mo.    pp.  194.    $1.25. 

'•  The  preacher  in  expounding  to  liis  congregation  one  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  will  find  it  very 
convenient  to  have  the  original  by  the  side  of  the  English  version.  For  private  reading  and  medi- 
tation, also  such  an  arrangement  will  be  found  very  pleasant  and  profitable.  We  feel  confident  that 
this  little  volume  will  be  a  favorite  with  Hebrew  scholars;  and  that,  when  they  have  once  becoma 
habituated  to  it,  it  will  be,  to  many  of  them,  a  vade  mecum.'"  —  Bibliothcca  Sacra. 

"A  handsome  edition  of  the  Book  of  Psalms,  which  will  be  quite  a  favorite  with  clergymen  acd 
theological  students."  —  ^Yew  Englander. 

"A  very  convenient  and  admirable  manual,  and  we  beg  leave  to  thank  our  Andover  friend  for 
it."—  Fre^mti-rian  Quarterly. 

"  The  volume  is  beautifully  printed,  of  convenient  size  for  use,  and  of  admirable  adaptation  to  the 
Bervice  of  those  whose  Hebrew  has  become  a  dim  reminiscence."  — iVor<A  American. 

HEBRE'W  GRAMMAR.    The  Elements  of  the  Hebrew  Language.    By  Rev. 
A.  D.  Jones,  A.M.    8vo.    pp.  168.     $1.75. 
"  By  a  simple  and  progressive  series  of  exercise,  and  by  a  perfectly  plain  exposition  of  the  syntax, 
the  student  is  enabled  to  take  up  Hebrew  just  as  he  would  the  Initia  Latina,  and  just  as  easily."  • 
Publisher's  Cireidar,  Apr.  15,  1870. 
**  The  plan  of  the  work  \a  admirable,  and  happily  executed."  —  £</bn««d  Church . 

(2) 


Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper. 


"WINER'S  N.  T,  GRAMMAR.    A  Grammar  ©f  the  Idiom  of  the  New  Tes- 

*  tament;  prepared  as  a  Solid  Basis  for  the  Interpretation  of  the  New  Testament. 
By  Dr.  Gkorge  Benedict  Winer.  Seventh  Edition,  enlarged  and  improved. 
By  Dr.  Gottlieb  Lunemann,  Professor  of  Theology  at  the  University  of 
Gbttingen.  Revised  and  authorized  Translation.  8vo.  pp.744.  Cloth,  ^4.00; 
sheep,  S5.00 ;  half  goat,  $5.75. 

"Prof.  Thayer  exhibits  the  most  scholarly  and  pains-taking  accuracy  in  all  his  Trork,  especial 
attention  being  given  to  references  and  Indexes,  on  which  the  value  of  such  a  work  so  much 
depends.  The  Indexes  alone  fill  eighty-six  pages.  The  publisher's  work  is  handsomely  done,  and 
we  cannot  conceive  that  a  better  Winer  should  be  for  many  years  to  come  accessible  to  American 
•cholars." —  Princeton  I'evieic. 

"  We  trust  that  this  admirable  edition  of  a  justly  famous  and  surpassingly  valuable  work,  will 
gain  extensive  circulation,  and  that  the  study  of  it  will  begin  aircsh."  —  Baptist  Quarterly. 

"  The  seventh  edition  of  Winer,  superintended  by  Lunemann  (Leipz.  ISC/),  we  have  at  last, 
thanks  to  Prof.  Thayer,  in  a  really  accurate  translation."  —  Dr.  Ezra  Jbbot,  in  Smith's  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible,  American  Edition. 

"  We  have  before  us,  in  our  own  language,  *  a  reproduction  of  the  original  work,'  in  its  most  per- 
fect form,  and  with  its  author's  latest  additions  and  improvements."  —  Neto  Englander. 

"Professor  Thayer  has  introduced  numerous  and  important  corrections  of  Masson's  translation, 
and  has  made  the  present  edition  of  the  Grammar  decidedly  superior  to  any  of  the  preceding 
translations.  He  has  made  it  especially  convenient  for  the  uses  of  an  English  student  by  noting  on 
the  outer  margin  of  the  pages  the  paging  of  the  sixth  and  seventh  German  editions,  and  also  of 
Prof.  Masson's  tra/islation.  Thus  the  reader  of  a  commentary  which  refers  to  the  pages  of  either  of 
those  volumes,  may  easily  find  the  reference  by  consulting  the  margin  of  this  volume."— i>S).  Sacra. 

"The  whole  appearance  of  the  work  as  it  now  stands  indicates  a  careful  and  thorough  scholar- 
ship. A  critical  comparison  of  several  pages  with  the  original  confirms  the  impression  made  by  a 
general  examination  of  the  book.  In  its  present  form,  this  translation  may  now  be  recommended  ag 
worthy  of  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  minister  who  desires  to  study  the  New  Testament  with  the 
aid  of  the  best  critical  helps."  —  Theolof/ical  Eclectic. 

"  Great  pains  also  have  been  taken  to  secure  typographical  accuracy,  an  extremely  difficult  thing 
in  a  work  of  this  kind.  We  rejoice  that  so  invaluable  a  work  has  thus  been  made  as  nearly  perfiect 
as  we  can  hope  ever  to  have  it.  It  is  a  work  that  can  hardly  fail  to  facilitate  and  increase  the  rever- 
ent and  accurate  study  of  the  Word  of  God."  —  AmericaH  Fresbyterian  Review. 

BtJTTMANN'S  N.  T.  GRAMMAR.     A  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament 

*  Greek.  By  Alexander  Buttmann.  Authorized  Translation,  by  J.  Henry 
Thayer.  With  numerous  additions  and  corrections  by  the  Author.  8vo.  pp.  494. 
Price,  cloth,  $2.75. 

"  This  Grammar  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  most  important  work  which  has  appeared  on  N.  T. 
Grammar  since  Winer's.  Its  use  has  been  hindered  by  the  fact  that  in  the  original  it  has  tlie  form 
of  an  Appendix  to  the  Classic  Greek  Grammar  by  the  Author's  father.  Tlie  inconvenience  arising 
from  this  peculiarity  has  been  obviated  in  this  translation  by  introducing  in  every  case  enough  from 
that  Grammar  to  render  the  statements  easily  intelligible  to  readers  unacquainted  with  that  work  5 
at  the  same  time,  the  Author's  general  scheme  of  constantly  comparing  New  Testament  and  Classic 
nsage  has  been  facilitated  for  every  Student,  by  giving  running  references  throughout  the  book  to 
five  or  six  of  the  most  current  grammatical  works,  among  them  the  Grammars  of  Hadley,  Crosby, 
Donaldson,  and  Jelf.  Additions  and  corrections  in  more  than  two  huudrcd  and  fifty  places  have 
been  furnished  for  this  edition  by  the  Author. 

"  The  N.  T.  Index  has  been  enlarged  so  as  to  include  all  the  passages  from  the  N.  T.  referred  to 
in  the  Grammar  ;  and  a  separate  Index  has  been  added,  comprising  all  the  passages  cited  from  the 
Septuagint.  The  other  Indexes  have  been  materially  augmented  ;  the  cross-references  have  been 
multiplied;  chapter  and  verse  added  to  many  of  the  fragmentary  quotations  from  the  N.  T.  ;  the 
pagination  of  the  German  original  has  been  given  in  the  margin  ;  and  at  the  end  of  the  book  a 
glossary  of  technical  terms  encountered  more  or  less  frequently  in  commentaries  and  grammatical 
works  has  been  added  for  the  convenience  of  students."—  Translator's  Preface. 

"  Professor  Thayer  has  performed  his  task  —  which  has  been  a  great  deal  more  than  that  of  a  mere 
translator- with  remarkable  fidelity.  It  is  doubtless  the  best  work  extant  on  this  subject,  and  a 
book  which  every  scholarly  pastor  will  desire  to  possess.  Its  usableness  is  greatly  enhanced  by  ita 
complete  set  of  Iindexes."—  The  Advance. 

"It  is  a  thoroughly  scientific  treatise,  and  one  which  will  be  helpful  to  students,  both  in  connec- 
tion with  Winer's  and  as  discussing  many  points  from  a  different  or  opposite  point  of  view.  Prof. 
Thayer  has  added  much  to  the  value  of  the  book  —  as  one  to  be  readily  and  conveniently  uaed  — by 
Mlarg(ing  and  perfecting  the  Indexes,"  etc.  —  Ifew  Englander. 

(3) 


xxr^ 


■          f                *^' 

-  '** 

^  ?  ' 

T"-./ 

* 
* 

Mr  'Vo'^5 

'         \                 'V 

./.,-■* 

'                                                 t    • 

\  ^ 

'■'■*.  ' 

.  ,  -     .  ii 

'■  '.vf  i^ 

^'v,  f"  *■  >♦. 

/,y'; 

fl 

'.>V:;.^-. 

,       ^ 

l.'v   -    - 

\^mmmfm^ 

.>>*mm  ^■iii'fff 

..<■/■•  ^ 

^WWCS* 

** 

*i 

■,J  ■*  '-.J'l* 

.  ..:^';.  ; 

^^rf^^FrWr^SP 

'.;-■'■•■   ; 

fWf^^W^*^ 

\              i 

.^ 

■^^<.j^:  ^. 

1         1 

■ 

•■•■^e* 

\     ■                   '^\ 

^ 

.,^: 

';-".'> 


-•?.■. 


'^R 


P 


i.I'SL^J^ 


'^i^ 


7<r 


W    .     V    '.  .1' 


■?  -..•  ^-  -f  ^  >s 


'>v< 


I 


